" My point, as I said in my first post, is that highly figured wood is ALWAYS the first thing you notice about a custom rifle with, well, nicely figured wood. That's the whole point, is it not?"
Not at all. the first thing I look for is what is there in this gun that makes it what it is being called a representation of, grade of wood is at about the bottom of the list, I personaly see mLs as a piece of the last and look for how well these current offering fit in with the originals, what I see as a problem is that far to many just look at the purdy wood and stop there with no interst to learn or understanding of what they should be seeing in a 1770 Lancaster by Dickert, not that all should be history students but once we start tossing around very specific types and styles of guns there really should be something there to substantiate the use of the terminology, and bringing up any shortcommings in any given gun with this in mind does not have to be a slam but a learning experience for others who may want to have a closer representation of a given type of style but without any proper critique they will not know what to look for,this is a very tricky task to get a wellmade gun with the traits it should have to fit a style/type as even many high dollar builders will cut corners and tweak history to make standard parts stretch history to their liking, folks shouild be gratefull that ythere are a few here who will share their knowledge of the originals for comparative reasons and not get so upset if they are told that their gun has flaws from that perspective, it does not lessen the usability of the gun it only puts it in the correct perspective compared to the original not making it bad just different, and one thing that does not help theoverall enlightenment of newcommers is for those who have only held or fired one brand /style of gun calling it one of the best offerings avaliable such glowing kudos should fall to those who have actually used quite a few different styles and brands or gunsIMHO,Mike and others comments could make a big difference in whether one gets a very well made representation of an 18th century gun or a nice gun with purdy wood nothing wrong with the latter but if one wants the former the right information must be had, and again how can anyone claim so and so makes fine guns when they have nothing else to compare with as far as gun quality?It is entirely defensive posturing when none is needed nor is it needed to over praise any gun when not having the experience to make such a judgement, some will learn, some are not capable, some choose not to. I just suggest that when valuble hard to find information is there soak it up like a sponge, if it is of no interest find another thread that deals with topics that are not about learning about anything.
Not at all. the first thing I look for is what is there in this gun that makes it what it is being called a representation of, grade of wood is at about the bottom of the list, I personaly see mLs as a piece of the last and look for how well these current offering fit in with the originals, what I see as a problem is that far to many just look at the purdy wood and stop there with no interst to learn or understanding of what they should be seeing in a 1770 Lancaster by Dickert, not that all should be history students but once we start tossing around very specific types and styles of guns there really should be something there to substantiate the use of the terminology, and bringing up any shortcommings in any given gun with this in mind does not have to be a slam but a learning experience for others who may want to have a closer representation of a given type of style but without any proper critique they will not know what to look for,this is a very tricky task to get a wellmade gun with the traits it should have to fit a style/type as even many high dollar builders will cut corners and tweak history to make standard parts stretch history to their liking, folks shouild be gratefull that ythere are a few here who will share their knowledge of the originals for comparative reasons and not get so upset if they are told that their gun has flaws from that perspective, it does not lessen the usability of the gun it only puts it in the correct perspective compared to the original not making it bad just different, and one thing that does not help theoverall enlightenment of newcommers is for those who have only held or fired one brand /style of gun calling it one of the best offerings avaliable such glowing kudos should fall to those who have actually used quite a few different styles and brands or gunsIMHO,Mike and others comments could make a big difference in whether one gets a very well made representation of an 18th century gun or a nice gun with purdy wood nothing wrong with the latter but if one wants the former the right information must be had, and again how can anyone claim so and so makes fine guns when they have nothing else to compare with as far as gun quality?It is entirely defensive posturing when none is needed nor is it needed to over praise any gun when not having the experience to make such a judgement, some will learn, some are not capable, some choose not to. I just suggest that when valuble hard to find information is there soak it up like a sponge, if it is of no interest find another thread that deals with topics that are not about learning about anything.