• 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

India made vs Italian, USA etc, RB accuracy at 50 yds

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I've heard that there are importers that have great quality Firearms, some have good quality and others are well, "poorly made kits guns" that require close inspection and work to make them even reasonably shootable.

Who would you recommend as a great source for an India made gun?
 
I've heard that there are importers that have great quality Firearms, some have good quality and others are well, "poorly made kits guns" that require close inspection and work to make them even reasonably shootable.

Who would you recommend as a great source for an India made gun?
Loyalist Arms is where I bought mine. They have a US repair company that is top notch. They can tune locks , replace parts etc and very reasonable.
I like your Fusil and wish I had bought that model.
 
Nice, I have the same gun. I refinished mine with blo and stain then poly satin. The finish is good but the wood has so many curls and colors in it I think it’s way too busy. I’m going to use paint the next time, if there is a next time.
How does yours do with round balls?

It does rather well, but I took a long time to get it to shoot OK.

LD
 
Loyalist Arms? I want to get a matchlock but as a traitor Loyalist bothers me. Lol
1647610032829.png
 
Many of the Loyalists during the time of the American Revolution wanted reforms to make the colonies truly represented in the British parliamentary system. The propaganda disseminated by those that wanted separation from Great Britain effectively prevented true debate as to methods to make the colonies true members that were represented in the British Parliament. The only newspapers published were those that supported the revolutionary causes. Newspapers that attempted to present a loyal to the crown were shut down and, in some cases, destroyed. So much for freedom of speech.

Now then back to a comparison of India manufacture to Italian manufacture and quality of made in USA with respect to accuracy. I am a user of a Loyalist Arms Long Land Pattern Musket from the Irish establishment (marked Dublin Castle). Such a musket is not available from Italian sources. A very good Long Land Pattern Musket Kit is available from the Rifle Shoppe. I didn't want to wait years to have a King's Musket in my possession. I have seen assembled Rifle Shoppe kits and have shot live fire on woods walks so I can compare on target accuracy. Our unit also has a few Pedersoli Short Land Pattern (Second Models). All are capable of similar performance on target. The Rifle Shoppe kits will result in a musket that is slightly lighter in weight than an India manufactured musket. With a bit tuning, the Loyalist Arms guns perform as reliably as the Italian muskets and the Rifle Shoppe muskets.

So, getting a musket from Loyalist Arms is not getting a musket from a traitor. The Land Pattern Muskets saw plenty of loyal use during the F&I, AWI and were even pulled out of states stores at the start of the ACW (American Civil War).
 
Last edited:
Many of the Loyalists during the time of the American Revolution wanted reforms to make the colonies truly represented in the British parliamentary system. The propaganda disseminated by those that wanted separation from Great Britain effectively prevented true debate as to methods to make the colonies true members that were represented in the British Parliament. The only newspapers published were those that supported the revolutionary causes. Newspapers that attempted to present a loyal to the crown were shut down and, in some cases, destroyed. So much for freedom of speech.

A somewhat off-topic response to this somewhat off-topic observation ...

Well, freedom of speech was a pretty new concept in that environment, and at least one reasonably authoritative and believable source remarks that " Active violence against Loyalist printers was rare, however, before the war. Patriots would threaten them, attempt to ostracize them, and demonize them in their own newspapers, but not usually attack them." This does in fact look like a "propaganda" war (on both sides) that didn't prevent debate but rather constituted debate (at least of a sort).

Perhaps one of the biggest problems in "integrating" the colonies into the British parliamentary system were those parts of it's parliamentary system that rested in fundamental ways on the role and power of the monarchy and the large and associated systems of "nobles" and the titled aristocracy. And this isn't true of every parliamentary system because a monarchical and aristocratic base and power structure isn't even remotely required to have a parliamentary form of government.

The British parliamentary system at that time was a monarchical and aristocratic system based on inherited titles and wealth controlled ultimately by the monarch and those who were members of that aristocrat class. This was quite inconsistent with the situation in the American colonies where there was substantial freedom for individuals to direct and improve their own lives. And while economic classes continued to exist, those boundaries could be crossed (through work and the accumulation of property and wealth) in ways that simply couldn't be done in British society of the time.

British philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke had treated the problems of that sort of society at length, and in fact Locke's writings and approach -- particular in the area of individual rights and the concept of private of property -- formed a significant part of the philosophy and constitutional approach taken by the Continental Congress and later the U.S. Hobbes', after struggling mightily (and writing shortly before Locke), eventually threw up his hands and argued for the necessity of a monarchy in order to provide for the uniform and continuing protection and adjudication of individuals' safety and rights -- but parts of the argument are inconsistent, and certainly unconvincing; and Hobbes himself wasn't happy with it.

I mention this only to provide some context for saying that the very idea of integrating the colonies into the British "parliamentary system" was in fact fraught with fundamental difficulties, the resolution of which seem insurmountable. For example, was a new colonial aristocratic (and thereafter hereditary) class to be created? And how? At the whim of the monarch, or by bureaucratic act of the parliament? What could be the criteria for that, given that that class was firmly based on heredity and such concepts as "divine right"? If such a class wasn't to be created in the colonies, then how was representation in the House of Lords (which retained substantial power) to be managed? Etc. Just one example of a basic problem.

Carwine's comment that
Carwine said:
From the British point of view Americans were traitors to the crown.
may not be entirely accurate (though certainly many did view things this way), but it is substantially accurate because of these sorts of difficulties and the light in which they put the colonists' "requests" or "demands" -- since from a reasonable British point of view they (mostly untitled commoners) were requesting the impossible. And note the phrase "traitors to the crown". Not traitors to a parliamentary form of government (although in this case the monarchy and system of lords, etc. was inextricably part of that form of government).

The British are still working on this, the future of the House of Lords looks quite dim, and the monarchy has been shoved pretty much into a niche of ceremony and entertainment, run much like a tourist and entertainment business (though still in part funded by British citizens). But the idea that making "the colonies true members that were represented in the British Parliament" was nowhere near as thinkable as, for example, absorbing the US into the Canadian parliament or other contemporary European parliaments -- even if you think that might not be too bad of an idea. So yeah, the support for the revolution was somewhat intense, and feelings were both strong and rational about any kind of workable "reconciliation".
 

Latest posts

Back
Top