Are You In The Historically-Accurate Camp Or Modern Practical?

[crazyjennyblack]

BOTH!!!!!!

I love things that go bang. I like the historical guns, the fantasy guns, and the modern ones. Have some of each.

theotherwaldo - I wanna see pics!!!! Is it possible to PM a couple or hint to me where some of the "strange context" stuff is online? I'm so curious what a "postmodern" gun would look like. Or at least show me something of the type?

 

[driver243]

Historically correct, I use a Uberti 1851 .36 Navy and a Pedersoli Tryon plains rifle, both give me great shooting and are also used for western re-enactment

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Considering that I have been known to go to the range at times in a fringed buckskin shirt decorated with buffalo teeth and drop front pants tucked into my pants and palmetto planters hat with a brace of "in the white" Walker repros in pommel holsters with bearskin flounces slung over my shoulder and a shortened percussion 12 gauge sxs or plains rifle, I guess that would put me in the "hysterically" correct crowd.

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Rather...pants tucked into my boots...oops

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

Jenny:
Perhaps a postmodern arm would be a modern repro bp revolver like a 1858 Rennie with Picatinny rails and laser and red dot. I made one up like that for the fun it. A pic is on this forum somewhere.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Like Historically accurate, as my replicas share case space with a few originals and substitute for them on the firing line. I hate things that scream "fake" and so I avoid buying things with "Load with Black Powder Only" inscribed on the sides of the barrels (which means I don't buy Piettas). I'm an equal opportunity hater of stupid markings and avoid modern firearms that have "read manual before using" stamped on them, so... <shrugs>. If Pietta wants my business, they can change their markings.

Always looking for older replicas like the Belgian Centennial/Centaure series, etc. The closer to original, the better. Have C&B replicas dating back into the very early 1960's if not older. Still researching a couple to date them.

For shootin': One pair of my Uberti 1860's has had some very discrete work done to improve function: cap rakes, action jobs, new springs, Treso nipples, reamed chambers, etc., and are my "shooters". These are functional improvements, not cosmetic, and you would be hard pressed to see much of it.

With all that said I'd like a Stainless ROA as a shooter "just because". But the ever-expanding line of fantasy revolvers has no value to me. I'd also be inclined to find an adjustable sight Remmie one day.


Willie

.

 

[wheelyfun66]

My short-barreled Cimarron 1858 factory conversion in 45 Colt in FAR from historically accurate....but it is my all-time favorite revolver!

 

[44 Dave]

For shootin': One pair of my Uberti 1860's has had some very discrete work done to improve function: cap rakes, action jobs, new springs, Treso nipples, reamed chambers, etc., and are my "shooters". These are functional improvements, not cosmetic, and you would be hard pressed to see much of it.

Willie

.[/QUOTE]
I want my guns looking traditional.
I also have a pair of Uberti 1860s, that are my "shooters" with the same mods.
Listen to Willie, cap rakes are the way to prevent cap jams on open tops. Don't do all that stuff to make them look like a Remington, or something that never was.

 

[tpelle]

No, but I know where you're talking about, and was born and raised just down the road in 'M'. I currently live about halfway between 'SG' and 'A', in 'CS'.

Hah! That was fun, but I bet we confused everyone else on here besides you and me!

 

['63 Panhead]

I really enjoy period correct firearms. Love to shoot my 1851 navies in .36 cal and my 1860 armies in .44 cal. However the adjustable sights on the Pietta Remington '58 make trying different loads and sighting in easier. I keep notes on what I load and where the sight sits.

 

[kBob]

I thought this was going to be about modern inline rifles and pistols verses things that would not have been out of place in 1870.

I have no issues with "1851" .44 brass frames, as folks can afford them and it gets folks into BP.

On the other hand I think modern inline BPs, especially with modern scopes, have no place in the primitive weapons hunting seasons.

-kBob

 

[45 Dragoon]

I'm with you CraigC, seems like a lota "weirdos" on here!!! LOL
Looks like something for everybody . . . there's a lot to be said for those of us that like "old timey" guns!! (We're a BIG crowd!!!!! )


45 Dragoon

 

[tpelle]

You know? I have no issues with things like cutting a barrel down to make a pistol "handier" - heck, that was often done back in the day. What bothers me, though, is an outfit like Cabela's that markets things like the brass-framed Colt replicas and passes them off as if they were historically accurate. Somebody that doesn't know better will buy one thinking they've bought something that they haven't.

I've also seen photos of 1873 Peacemakers with 1860 grips. That was apparently often done as well.

There was a lot of swapping of parts done, out of necessity to keep a firearm running, and maybe just to satisfy someone's particular taste. That puts up a pretty big tent as far as historical accuracy.

I just hate to see things misrepresented.

 

[toolslinger]

Well now just because a ROA ain't a copy of a 19th century black powder revolver don't mean it ain't historically accurate. It's accurate to its own time period
That being said my G&G is .36 caliber and is about to get it's finish stripped as I just found out they were never blued. My Walker has a cylinder in the white. My '51 Navy is steel framed and .36 cal.
With that being said I won't have a brass framed .44 cause I cain't see putting 17 grains under a .44 ball I get a good deal on a steel .44 "navy" and I will shoot the crap out of it
Now I ain't havin a brass framed Remmie cause that is one big severe case o the uglies. I will eventually have a 5 1/2'' steel , one of the 6 1/2 '' .36 cals(even though they the wrong size) and might even get me a buffler.

 

[[email protected]]

I am a traditionalist at heart, but sometimes I use the tool to do the job at hand.

 

[jldee55]

Well a few years back when I laid my eyes on an 1860 Colt (and my hands) I said there would be 3 things I would have no interest in doing, I wanted to stay on the HC/PC side of the art..even though nothing is really 100% correct nowdays. Well I broke the first one with the purchase of an 1851 "reb" navy 44 brasser, the price was right, it was cute, the barrel interchanges with my 60 and I fugured what the hell, everybody should own at least 1 brasser ( I think my Traditions vest derringer fit in there too). The second thing I said I had no interest in was the more modern period (ohh late 1800's lol) but I shot that one too when I picked up 2 conversion cylinders 1 for the 60 and 1 for the 58, and the 3rd one I just recently broke..I got me a rifle ( not really HC or PC), now I have to figure out how to shoot it, no place for a cap, just a little shallow pan under the hammer and a piece of rock on another part, that sparks ,,,,sometimes..lol

 

[shafter]

I'm somewhere in the middle, leaning heavily toward historically accurate but like most folks, I pick and choose. "Weird" is a perfectly suitable adjective and I am comfortable with it. I despise "modern" muzzleloaders, i.e. stainless and synthetic inlines shooting modern bullets and wearing optics. I love traditional rifles but have no problem with substitutes, as long as they're loose and not pellets. I have no problem with .44cal 1851's but don't care for the Ruger at all. I don't like my Open Tops and 1860 conversions chambered in .45Colt but modern .44Colt is not exactly 100% authentic. I think it's strange to hunt with a traditional rifle while wearing modern camo clothing but I'm not a stitch counter either in my rubber-soled Ariat's. I do make an effort, however.

That's pretty much where I fall too.

 

[Tejicano Loco]

Hey 45 Dragoon,

Not to raise a fuss - just to discuss the point :

you dont want a Walker cause it's so rare but you setteled for the rarest of the Dragoons !

From my research there were only 1,100 Walkers made and the first thousand went directly to the Mexican War - so only about 100 were available for civilian sale. About 260 of these blew up in service and were returned for repairs - so those that did survive service and end up in civilian hands were probably fewer still.

Yup, the 2nd model was rare at only 1,500 made but those were all sold to individuals so 1,500 different paths and stories. I guess I mainly like the "tradition" of the squareback triggerguard but the better function of the minor improvements to the action. At least the dang loading lever stays up when I shoot it.

Any further information you can give me would be appreciated. I like to be as informed on these issues as possible.

 

[jaxenro]

I like traditional, appreciate modern, and dislike cheap. To me a brass framed 44 screams cheap. The Cabela's 44's seem the same to me but I also see that they get a lot of people into shooting black powder that never would.

Most of my revolvers would've considered traditional yet I am working ups 36 caliber Walker which is certainly not traditional

 

[BSA1]

Alas I am historically modern as two of my favorite C&B revolver were never made;
The 1858 Remington 44 with 5 1/2" barrel and the 1862 Police 36 cal. with 6 shot cylinder.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I haven't taken the cap and ball plunge yet, but I do plan to eventually. I will be historically accurate for the most part. If I get an 1851 pattern gun, it will be in .36 caliber.

I do admit to having a liking for the 5 1/2" Remington though. It's nice to look at and everyone that has them, loves them.

I do agree with CraigC about the .45 Colt in the conversions. The modern .44 Coltl may not be accurate compared to the original, but to me, even .44 Special would be better than .45 Colt. At least it is .44 caliber. That much is accurate.

 

[bannockburn]

I would have to consider myself mainly a traditionalist, as I prefer the original designs but of modern manufacture. I had a Remington 1858 copy and still have a Colt Model 1860 Third Generation.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Loco, lol , I agree with your research. I too, like the older look of the square backs but also appreciate the 3 rd mod. as well. I just got tickled at your idea of not wanting a "rare" model and then jump all over a 2nd mod. !!!! I love the big guns and will be picking up my new Walker tomorrow. Soon, it will turn into an ultra rare . . . cartridge converted Walker, just like my beautiful Whitney and 1st Dragoons!!!!!

Carry on Loco !!!!!


45 Dragoon

 

[Flatbush Harry]

I have a Uberti 8" 1858 Rem and a Uberti 8" 1860 Army, so I guess I fall in the historically accurate group. That said, I use Pyrodex P, Rem #10 caps and Hornady swaged .454 balls. Not sure what that makes me.

BTW, I have a helluva lotta fun...as I did yesterday...2 hrs shooting, 2-hrs cleaning.

Harry, user of ballistol and T/C No. 13

 

[BullSlinger]

I have two historically correct guns. One is a Rugar Old Army the other an NAA Companion. I very much enjoy shooting them both.
I also have several Italian Clones that I also very much enjoy shooting.
All these are manufactured using modern steel and some with brass (probably an alloy). Several of these revolvers have aftermarket nipples that in no way are anything like what was used 150 years ago. I use black powder and subs and caps that are made with copper and not brass and modern priming powder instead of mercury fulmate. All these items are mass produced on modern machinery and shipped around the world/country in a fraction of time it once would have taken.
I enjoy having electric lighting and heating my home with natural gas. My food does not rot thanks to refrigeration. I drive vehicles that were not around in the 19th century and watch television and have a computer.
Aint living in the 21st century a blast.