flintlocks and cartridge guns

[Caleb Hobbs]

Jake brought up an interesting question about allowing flintlock rifles at a match. On the other end of the period, what about cartridge guns such as the Henry and Spencer? I'm curious, what does everyone think?

[Short Knife Johnson]

  Would have a negative effect on your times.   

I've kind of had the thought staging an unfamiliar weapon (either caplock musket, cartridge rifle or miscellaneous handgun) as a "Battlefield pick up" would be fun. 

[wildman1]

Would have a negative effect on your times.   

I've kind of had the thought staging an unfamiliar weapon (either caplock musket, cartridge rifle or miscellaneous handgun) as a "Battlefield pick up" would be fun. 

NOOO he said the "T" word. WM

[litl rooster]

so how do you handle a no fire, with an in experianced ML shooter?  I am not trying to be a nay sayer. I have thought using one to start the stage or as a bonus would be fun. With no penalty to the shooter for a dry fire a miss fire or even a miss.

[wildman1]

That shooter would no longer be inexperienced Roo. WM

[litl rooster]

That shooter would no longer be inexperienced Roo. WM

hand them the degree and move them on uh?  kind of like a degree from a on line college

[Tascosa Joe]

Personally I like the idea of having the Henry or Spencer allowed.

[buffalo bill]

Just have to be careful not to "re-invent the wheel". One of the main reasons for this group was that our time/guns were not represented. All of the other shooting groups use cartridge guns. . .

"SCOUTIN' for SHAGGIES"

BUFFALO BILL

[St. George]

You need to remember that for the time frame you suggest - it's the 'cartridge' weapon that'd be unfamiliar to most.

This proposed category falls between 'Buckskinner' and 'NCOWS shooter' with no secure footing in either.

If you're serious about APS - pick one and establish guidelines, stick to them and stop trying to straddle a fence that's just going to wind up muddying the waters insofar as your time frame is considered, if you try to accomodate everyone's ideas and fancies.

NCOWS does just that - and beyond reviewing what's approved for weaponry - it manages quite well to keep folks outfitted and shooting happily within their specified era, without any attempt to join an ever-increasing arms race - even allowing pretty much everything you're proposing, so long as you can document how you came by the gear used by your Impression.

If your cut-off is roughly 1865 - then cartridge weapons were 'not' common, and given wartime production, new percussion weapons would've been in short supply, since most arms makers were attempting to fill contracts - early percussion guns and single-shots would've proliferated - despite the advent of the aenemic Paterson, and hard-to-find-at-the-time Walker.

The Navy Colt and Pocket Model would've been cutting-edge - along with the odd Dragoon.

Good Luck!

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Sacramento Johnson]

Howdy!

I have no problem allowing the Henry and Spencer.  Sure they would have been fairly rare, but by 1860, flintlock would probably not have been real common compared to percussion except in a few select conditions.  If you're playing a character that's at the end of the period (1860-1865), I could see you having one of those firearms, especialy if you were well off.  The time range agreed upon was a transition period as concerns firearms, and these firearms were authentic to this period.

(Besides, have you all priced modern Henry and Spencer replicas lately?  Given their high cost, I don't think you'll see too many walking around with them, anyway!)

[JimBob]

I think everyone is a little too quick to say flintlocks were gone for the most part in this period.By and large most of the troops in the Mexican War were armed with flint muskets.The flint trade gun was a common item  thru out the entire period almost up to the turn of the century.

[Stu Kettle]

I think everyone is a little too quick to say flintlocks were gone for the most part in this period.

So do I JimBob, but this little group already lost my interest when nobody contested the idea that shotguns would be unheard of because of the "great distances" on the plains.  Besides, they've already started the "I ain't never seen one so they won't be allowed" rule.

[Caleb Hobbs]

Just to set the record straight, no one said anything about shotguns not being allowed, just that they wouldn't be as common among the plainsmen of the period. Wagon train emmigrants  and '49ers were mentioned as groups who might have shotguns -- the very next sentence, as a matter of fact. I can think of plenty of other groups who would also likely have a shotgun with them. If and how they might be incorporated into a match is a question for down the road. It is true that we are striving for historical accuracy.

Caleb

[Sacramento Johnson]

Howdy!
I have no problem with flintlocks being used as well; they would have been common in the 1840s, I expect and probably into the 1850s as well.  I also like the idea of muzzle loading shotguns.  Not too many reproductions are available and they're a bit pricey, but I think they're quite an authentic long arm for the entire period 1840-1865.

I see this group using firearms that the Mountain Man groups use and also NCOWS/SASS.  Which one a person ends up closer to depends on what part of the time range that person concentrates on.  I find the eclectic nature of firearms that might show up someday at a 'wagon train starting point' to be one of the cool things about this group. As for how shooting competitions might be done given this variety of firearms, I don't know, but say let's cross that bridge when  we get to it. (Personally, I see the shooting less structured/formalized than in SASS/NCOWS, and closer to Mountain Man (as it's done around here).

I hope this group doesn't get hung up on the 'competition' aspect so much that it artifically limits the firearms to supposedly 'level the playing field', ala SASS, and doesn't turn into thread counter groups that put more emphasis on costuming and relegate shooting to a minor aspect.

[Caleb Hobbs]

We share the same point of view on competition, Sacramento. I actually admire the so-called "stitch counters," (didn't even realize it was a derogatory term for a long time), but I don't want to see us going there. On the other hand, I don't want to see an organization with buckskinners loaded down with ten pounds of plastic beads and bells and a full-face coyote hats, which is no more historically correct to the period than a buscadero rig. I think we're heading in the right direction, and things will begin to move a little faster soon, but there will be bumps along the way.

Caleb

[Jake MacReedy]

deleted

[Sacramento Johnson]

Howdy Jake!

You're in a class all your own, don't ya know!!

[wildman1]

hand them the degree and move them on uh?  kind of like a degree from a on line college

Roo, if ya ever have trouble gettin a flinter or a percussion weapon ta go off holler at me, I know bout every way that there is ta gettem ta go bang.   WM

[Ranch 13]

Just to set the record straight, no one said anything about shotguns not being allowed, just that they wouldn't be as common among the plainsmen of the period. Wagon train emmigrants  and '49ers were mentioned as groups who might have shotguns -- the very next sentence, as a matter of fact. I can think of plenty of other groups who would also likely have a shotgun with them. If and how they might be incorporated into a match is a question for down the road. It is true that we are striving for historical accuracy.

Caleb

Might just want to go back and take a look at real plainsmen. Shotguns were probably more numerous than other firearms. Flintlocks never fell out of favor with the "plainsmen" until sometime after the railroads came and percussion caps and cartridge guns and their cartridges became more available at the local trading posts.
So in the end "historical" accuracy is going to include just about every type of firearm avialable at the time.

[Jake MacReedy]

Deleted