|
Post by pathfinder on Jul 7, 2010 13:28:18 GMT -7
Chuck
I have a (GRRW) Leman full stock flinter that I built back in '78. When I did, there wasn't as much emphasis on period correctness as perhaps there should have been. Most of the skinners I hung out with were in northwestern Colorado (Craig/Steamboat) and most had generic flinters or Hawken type guns. I wanted something a bit different so I built the Leman........................however, knowing what I do now, Lemans were part of the trade gun market and predominately percussion. However, is my full stock flinter generic enough for early fur trade?.........hope I was specific enough!
Doug
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Burrows on Jul 7, 2010 13:39:44 GMT -7
I'd say yes with some just minor reservations since it's basically a Lancaster also known in the trade at the time as an American model. Back dating it I personally wouldn't go much before maybe 1820 as styles did change some over time, but overall as a generica model I sure wouldn't put somebody down who carried one even for the 1815 era. And while I do love doing the research and keep my gear as documented as possible, I'm sure not anal about it since NOBODY knows it all - FF librarians included ........ Dating locks for instance - Henry in 1815 was importing English locks that included rollers, double rollers, and waterproof pans so even the so-called late L & R aka Ashmore, etc. would be appropriate, although I'm a fan of the Chambers late Ketland for earlier fur trade rifles.
|
|
|
Post by pathfinder on Jul 7, 2010 13:48:04 GMT -7
Thanks Chuck! My lock is a Siler with rear cut off and I added a roller bearing frizzen several years ago when I had basically wore the original out. I have taken bear and elk with it.......if I got back into RMFT it would have to do till I talked Lloyd into building something else for me. I also built a Norwest gun back then too. Here's the Leman
|
|
|
Post by Librarian on Jul 9, 2010 17:47:36 GMT -7
How do! Not a negative or criticism... Were it mine, I would round off the Germanic pan, and swap out the early Germannic "goose neck" cock for a cock that was a littlle more 1820's "English." Maybe reshape the front of the frizzen a tad. Again, not a negative or criticism, just my druthers where it to be mine. Two or three times in the past 10 years, I have been tempted, sorely tempted, to pick up a Henry "English" pattern rifle. But, beaver don't shine in Ohio no more. And I get over the urge to be a Mountainguy again. Until the next time. Still have an ongoing and unresolved nagging passion for a 1792 Contract Rifle....
|
|
|
Post by pathfinder on Jul 10, 2010 14:57:52 GMT -7
Thank you for your comments. As It was the first I built, I'll likely leave it as it is ....and perhaps like yourself will figure some way to have a '92 built. I am suddenly trying to build an 1812 impression and considering returning to my roots in the fur trade......the '92 might well work for both............besides I have a new Bender topper to work in to one or the other!
|
|