> > > Gee Buck.....I'm hurt.. Hear that sound? 'Tis me wee heart a breakin'. i 'tis.....
> > > D
> >
>
> Money, Money, did I hear a wager on shootin'
>
> "May the spirit be with you"
> D.L. Smith
I wondered how long it would take for the rattlesnake to appear. Where have you been, have had folks from this list contacting me about you moving to Livingston MO - what's that near ? And now your a cor-in-nat-or of history, what century - Roman !
Your a heck of a guy, stir the list up then disappear, have you check the Baker page lately ?
Later,
Buck Conner
AMM Jim Baker Party Colorado Territory
http://klesinger.com/jbp/swf1.html
__________________________________
The AMM Journal.
The Tomahawk & Long Rifle
3483 Squires * Conklin, MI 49403
ATTN: Jon Link
Subscription rate for the T&LR is $20 for
a year - qtr issues - Feb, May, Aug, Nov.
_____________________________________
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:52:12 -0400
From: deforge1@wesnet.com (Dennis Miles)
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
Me????? Nooo.... You need to come home fer a spell, Buck..<G>
D
Buck wrote:
>
> No thats you reachin' for a wager kid. You been hangin' with the Amish brothers to long, need to get away for a spell.
>
> Later,
> Buck Conner
>
> AMM Jim Baker Party Colorado Territory
> http://klesinger.com/jbp/swf1.html
> __________________________________
>
> The AMM Journal.
> The Tomahawk & Long Rifle
> 3483 Squires * Conklin, MI 49403
> ATTN: Jon Link
> Subscription rate for the T&LR is $20 for
> a year - qtr issues - Feb, May, Aug, Nov.
> _____________________________________
>
> Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
- --
"Abair ach beagan is abair gu math e"
DOUBLE EDGE FORGE
Period Knives & Iron Accoutrements
http://www.wesnet.com/deforge1
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:45:00 -0400
From: Tom Roberts <troberts@gdi.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
Michael Pierce wrote:
> I dont believe that filing the front sight........
> Nor do I. By my reckoning (16" raised over 900" + 39" distance) I would
> have to change the sight by 0.67" and it's only 0.15" tall now.
> not down on the gun with his head............
Actually, my head is as low as can get - cheekbone resting on wrist of stock.
Any lower and the eye
cannot see over the crown of the tang.
use your thumb and pointing finger and grip the barrel............ gives you
a rear reference....
Now this makes great sense as it actually changes the sight angle and is easy
to do. I'll try it
next weekend. This alone may make a great difference.
powder charge should be increased by at least 10 to 20 gr......
No problem here. I've heard of up to 120gr in a .54.
check the squareness of the end of the barrel and the crown........
If you mean the straightness of the barrel O.D., it's not. I pulled a taut
thread from the highest
point of the tang (where it meets the full barrel) to a point just aft of the
front sight and the
barrel is curved upwards. There's a gap between thread and barrel at mid
span of about 0.050.
Not sure what (if anything) this means provided the I.D. is bored straight.
Besides, it would seem that
this should tend to cause a higher shot. Maybe I need a better understanding
of what I should be
checking.
> you can also use the tang screw slot.........
Not on this gun. The tang screw comes from below. It is also well aft of,
and quite a bit
lower than, the crown of the barrel tang.
> position of the head is critical...........
Amen to that!
> if all else fails you might have to bend the barrel---
I sure hope it doesn't have to get this dramatic. I'm hoping the other
suggestions will get me
where I need to be.
have another smooth bore shooter shoot your gun..........
Will do this weekend - great idea!
Thanks to all who pitched in with advice. Thanks also to the rest of the
gang who never miss
an opportunity to let the sparks fly.
Tom
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:49:40 +0000
From: R Lahti <lahtirog@gte.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Tipi Dwelling
Linda Holley wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Angela I also think you have great information. Adds to my tipi knowledge.
Linda,
You add to the discussion:
> Stakes are much easier to carry and not all area have rocks. Are main camping
> area for tipis is out on the Plains. Lots of grass but not a lot of rocks. And I
> do prefer stakes when those big Plains winds come swooping down on you. I
> remember the 1978 NMLRA or NAPR when we were up in the hills and that BIG wind
> storm came through. Glad to be pegged down even though some tipis did a little
> "walking".
I remember that wind storm or one like it and my lodge was one that
walked! What I was originally trying to point out was that in the
original plains indian culture (pre white man) where one is intimately
familiar with where one is and where one is going, and where one is
dragging ones home behind dogs or even later with horses, it could make
logistic sense to rely on rocks already at established camp sites rather
than carry or make stakes. The evidence of the rock rings only tends to
suggest that this may have been the case, not that it proves it without
a doubt.
> > This does smack of white man inventiveness doesn't it?
>
> Maybe not. What are buffalo robes or elk hide robes for if not on the ground or
> "hanging" up.
The expected usage for buffalo and elk robes would be for ground
"cloths" and bedding. Because they existed surely does not suggest that
they were "hung up" as a liner within the lodge. A liner as we
understand them today would be as effective and much lighter if made of
"hair off" skins anyway. As was pointed out before, if they were used,
grass can be stuffed into the space between liner and cover for
insulation but then you loose the air flow that is supposed to be so
great a benefit gained by using liners.
These may have been the early "linings" that were used.
The original evidence that Angela presented suggested (as I read it)
that there is a significant absence of visual and written proof that
liners were even used until (again as I understand it) quit well into
the 1800's. I suggested that their later usage may have been from
exposure to white men. I only say that the evidence seems to indicate
that this may be the case.
We are too
> use to seeing the very fitted linings of today. Also remember that it is not
> necessary to have a lining up all the time.
One of the points made by others here was that a liner helps to keep the
smoke going up and out. The only time I ever considered taking down the
liner in our lodge was to raise the sides for maximum cross ventilation
on very hot days. Otherwise it stayed up to keep the heat in and the
heat out and for privacy during the evening. I suspect that is how most
of us use the liners we have in our lodges today.
It is work and not needed all the
> time.
I'm afraid I don't agree with that assumption at all. I use the liner to
help get the lodge up correctly and once it is up (which is not that
great a chore) it doesn't come down other that as I stated above. If it
does need to come down, it is a 5 minute job to drop it and maybe a 10
minute job to tie it back up. Other's experience's doing these chores
may be different and more troublesome but I am one to figure "trick"
ways of doing such things and have noticed many folks fighting jobs that
I find quit easy once the "tricks" are known and applied. But the point
must be made that these are all "tricks" that I have come up with
including the use of a fitted canvas liner, because of my 20th Century
mind and all that I and my predecessors have learned up to this point in
time. The pre European indian did not have that advantage and so I
believe we must be careful to ascribe what we see as common sense to us
as also available to the aggregate knowledge of the early indian or even
early european on this or any continent before our time.
> Old linings also came in sections. There can be more than 3 or 4 in a tipi. I
> have pictures of many early and then much later linings.
What old linings are we talking about? From what era do we see these
liners being used. Do we have some serious proof that they were used
prior to the use of photography or of the incident where they are
depicted in a sketch or painting? What I was gathering from Angela's
post was that there didn't seem to be any written or visual proof of the
common use of liners prior to 1820 or so (as I remember from her post).
Is that wrong?
There is also the
> nomadic problem here. Do you have the time or is it too heavy to drag around the
> more complete lining not to mention the OZAN if you have one.
I don't understand what we are arguing about here. You seem to be
supporting the contention that in a nomadic lifestyle, the carrying of
extra robs or skins to be used as a liner or ozan would not be expected
due to the extra weight. I couldn't agree more. It is very unlikely that
such would be done because of the extra weight and I don't think it was
done. With the introduction of canvas for lodge making material, such
extra fixtures would be much more practical. Are we concerned with how
the indians did things after the white man introduced such modern
conveniences as canvas? When did that finally happen with regularity?
Yes we use liners and many have discovered the benefits of an ozan but
though I use both, I don't pretend anymore that this is how the early
indians did things.
>
> >
> > >
> > > So, what's going on here? Did one Native group invent the tipi liner, and it
> > > was adopted by others later on? Or were only rich Natives able to afford a
> > > liner, and with the general increase in Native wealth, liners became much
> > > more common after 1821?
>
> I think you hit it on the head there. How many wives does it take to set up a
> COMPLETE tipi???? And what is a complete tipi???
One, if all she has to do is set the poles and lift the cover. May that
not be considered a complete lodge? Early lodges of skins were reported
to not be that big and only increased with the coming of the horse.
>
> > (The one potential reference to tipi liners is a
> > > description of the largest tipi in a camp of seven lodges.) Any thoughts?
> >
> > Back to the Amerindian, I am thinking that from what you have pointed
> > out above, liners were not the norm and perhaps a very late development
> > or even a white invention.
>
> I do not think so. They have been around a long time. I use one of my elk robes
> as lining behind my bed when i need one. Do not need it all the time. But in
> Fla. YOU DO NOT NEED ONE AT ALL.
What information do you have that supports your contention that they
have been around a long time? Because you do something is not proof.
Because you have found that on occasion you need to hang an elk robe
between your bed and the cover is not proof that this was done by early
indians. It may have very well been done, but you doing it is not proof
of anything itself other than that you are innovative. And in WA. most
of the time you do not need a liner either. It has gotten up to 110+
degrees F. here in eastern WA. this summer and this is plains indian
country. The liner stays up unless we want a cross breeze! But then
again we use a canvas lodge and liner which are hardly authentic to the
way the indians in this part of the country set their lodges around the
time of L & C and before. And they did use skin lodges. How they did it
then I have no idea but just because I do it that way is not proof that
they did it that way.
>
> > have been in an indian lodge whether it was made of skins or earth or
> > cedar logs and planks. Perhaps liners aren't all that authentic!
> >
> > been pretty smoky from time to time with a liner and flaps. Pilot error!
> > ingenuity. Well,
> > that are my thoughts at least to this point. If I ever set up my lodge
> > again, I will continue to use the liner and ozan. I remain.......
> >
>
> BTW....is it a liner or a lining???????
Well, I have always called it a liner. I visualize a lining as being
complete coverage on the inside of something "lined". In any case it is
semantics and which ever is used, we know what we are talking about.
Sorry about your PC. Just got mine revamped and lost a bunch of stuff. I
remain.....
YMOS
Capt. Lahti'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:48:10 +0000
From: R Lahti <lahtirog@gte.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
Tom Roberts wrote:
Tom,
Nor do I. By my reckoning (16" raised over 900" + 39" distance) I
would
> > have to change the sight by 0.67" and it's only 0.15" tall now.
>
> > not down on the gun with his head............
>
> Actually, my head is as low as can get - cheekbone resting on wrist of stock.
> Any lower and the eye
> cannot see over the crown of the tang.
There's the reason you are shooting so low. Your eye is your rear sight
and it is too low. Bring it up as you would if you put a rear sight on
the gun and you will shoot higher. The other suggestions made about how
to do this will help but basically you need to have your line of sight
start higher in back to make the ball hit higher on the target. That is
the trick to shooting a trade gun, learning where that eye needs to be
to get proper elevation. If you do not want to or can't keep your eye as
high as is required then you will either have to take some of the front
sight off to lower it and raise the point of aim or (God Forbid) tweak
the barrel upward so the ball comes out at a higher incident of attack.
Try the pinched finger trick as a rear sight/reference point. I
remain.....
YMOs
Capt. Lahti'
>
> use your thumb and pointing finger and grip the barrel............ gives you
> a rear reference....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:32:13 -0600
From: Allen Hall <allenhall@srv.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Let's Start Talking !
At 12:28 AM 8/30/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Here's a topic!
>
>Can any one show me documented references to throwing a tomahawk at
>rendezvous?
>
>Jim
>
Good point Jim, I never could understand the purpose of throwing away a
perfectly good weapon. If you miss, he could pick it up and whack you with
it, and he's likely to be a bit unhappy......
I guess if you just have to throw something, there's plenty of rocks here in
the "shinin' mountains".
Allen
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:45:36 -0400
From: Michael Pierce <hawknest4@juno.com>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
>for some real fun wait until you get an oxy.barrel smoothbore with
>rear
>sight that won't keep 3 shots at 50 yards on a 5' x 5' archery target.
>>
buck---
what do you mean by a oxi. barrel smoothebore ---do you mean an octigon
>You seem to know quit a bit about the Saami and perhaps much more than
>me (even though I'm proud to be Finn).
Heavens no! I've told you just about everything I know about the Saami.
> Perhaps liners aren't all that authentic!
Well, I wouldn't dare tell folks not to use tipi liners because they might
not be authentic. On the other hand, I don't think it wise to criticize
tipis without liners-- at least, not on historic grounds!
Linda Holley <tipis@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Stakes are much easier to carry and not all area have rocks. Are main camping
>area for tipis is out on the Plains. Lots of grass but not a lot of rocks.
I've seen tipi rings in areas that are _very_ exposed. Like on the top of
Nose Hill on the north end of Calgary, which is exposed to the strong
westerlies we get from the Rockies. The area of SE Alberta where Fidler
wrote about seeing tipi rings in 1792 (IIRC) is also notorious for strong
winds. Our portion of the Northern Plains doesn't lack for rocks-- the whole
area is covered by glacial rocks & gravel. In fact, the world's largest
glacial erratic, the Okotoks Big Rock, is just 50 km or so south of here.
It's two large rocks, each larger than a 3-storey apartment building.
Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred
agottfre@telusplanet.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:03:43 -0600
From: Rick Williams <Rick_Williams@byu.edu>
Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Tipi Dwelling
We know how important liners are to 'canvas' tipis. Perhaps thereis a
connection between the use of canvas verses buffalo and the more direct need
for a liner. Also canvas allowed for larger tipis. Perhaps the larger the
tipi the greater the need for chimney drafting.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 1999 08:17:39 -0700
From: "Buck" <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: MtMan-List: Low Shooter [off topic]
> buck---
> what do you mean by a oxi. barrel smoothebore ---do you mean an octigon
> barreled smooth bore?????
>
>
> "Hawk"
> Michael Pierce
- ---------------------------------
Sorry mean hexagon not octagon, was in a hurry.
OFF TOPIC
Have a friend that is an instructer at the Olympic Training Center in Colo. Spgs. CO teaching offhand shooting to the different teams. He has experienced similiar problems with round, hexagon and octagon barrels as far as shooting to point of aim. They're rifled of course, but has played with smooth bores also, he's says some really shot and then there will be one that won't do anything. Like pouring the ball down a rain spout.
Another things of interest is the hexagon and octagon barrels are showing up the round barrels (the ones the perform) in cooling down faster and having less barrel whip. I went down to their lab (HP Loveland CO), they have an indoor rifle range for testing. Had the (3) barrels setup with guages every 2" on each barrel - testing for heat temp and movement. The hexagon was the best for all tests, even in modern cal. 308, 270 and 22.
I guess our forefather had a good idea on what to build !!
Oh, they have rifles and pistols for off-hand and free-style in hexagon.
Later,
Buck Conner
AMM Jim Baker Party Colorado Territory
http://klesinger.com/jbp/swf1.html
__________________________________
The AMM Journal.
The Tomahawk & Long Rifle
3483 Squires * Conklin, MI 49403
ATTN: Jon Link
Subscription rate for the T&LR is $20 for
a year - qtr issues - Feb, May, Aug, Nov.
_____________________________________
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 1999 08:21:37 -0700
From: "Buck" <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
On Mon, 30 August 1999, Dennis Miles wrote:
>
> Me????? Nooo.... You need to come home fer a spell, Buck..<G>
> D
>
Your probably right, "say not".
Later,
Buck Conner
AMM Jim Baker Party Colorado Territory
http://klesinger.com/jbp/swf1.html
__________________________________
The AMM Journal.
The Tomahawk & Long Rifle
3483 Squires * Conklin, MI 49403
ATTN: Jon Link
Subscription rate for the T&LR is $20 for
a year - qtr issues - Feb, May, Aug, Nov.
_____________________________________
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 1999 08:29:37 -0700
From: "Buck" <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
On Mon, 30 August 1999, "larry pendleton" wrote:
> Lanney. with friends like you ..............................
> Pendleton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ratcliff <rat@htcomp.net>
> To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
> Date: Monday, August 30, 1999 7:18 PM
> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
>
>
> You boys better watch yer topknots....that Larry Pendleton is the very best
> bald headed rifle shooter in all 50 states and he is prepared to prove it at
> any time. Ain'tcha Larry?
> yer good friend
> Lanney
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis Miles <deforge1@wesnet.com>
> To: <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 8:54 PM
> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
>
>
> > Concho..
> > They are just tellin' stories.... I'll nae wager on shootin'....I
> swear..<G>
> > D
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Money, Money, did I hear a wager on shootin'
> > >
> > > "May the spirit be with you"
> > > D.L. Smith
He should have some wager money after all the tapes he sold.
Later,
Buck Conner
AMM Jim Baker Party Colorado Territory
http://klesinger.com/jbp/swf1.html
__________________________________
The AMM Journal.
The Tomahawk & Long Rifle
3483 Squires * Conklin, MI 49403
ATTN: Jon Link
Subscription rate for the T&LR is $20 for
a year - qtr issues - Feb, May, Aug, Nov.
_____________________________________
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 1999 08:47:05 -0700
From: "Buck" <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Tipi Dwelling
I would like to thank all of you for this very interesting information on tipi's and rings.
Wish I had this information years ago on the tipi rings; was clearing several large meadows near Estes Park CO for a farmer with a small cat (dozer) and shoved 12-15 sets of rings off into a hedge row. He broke up the ground and buried anyhting that may have laid on the surface, sad. After we where done he told me the rocks where tipi rings, never fails.
Thanks again.
Later,
Buck Conner
AMM Jim Baker Party Colorado Territory
http://klesinger.com/jbp/swf1.html
__________________________________
The AMM Journal.
The Tomahawk & Long Rifle
3483 Squires * Conklin, MI 49403
ATTN: Jon Link
Subscription rate for the T&LR is $20 for
a year - qtr issues - Feb, May, Aug, Nov.
_____________________________________
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 1999 10:47:20 -0700
From: "Concho" <concho@uswestmail.net>
Subject: MtMan-List: Low Shooter [OFF TOPIC]
> I wondered how long it would take for the rattlesnake to appear. Where have you been, have had folks from this list contacting me about you moving to Livingston MO - what's that near ? And now your a cor-in-nat-or of history, what century - Roman !
>
> Your a heck of a guy, stir the list up then disappear, have you check the Baker page lately ?
>
>
> Later,
> Buck Conner
I are a working person you know, "one with historical knowledge" according to the title !!!!! Livingston is a wide spot in the road, for now it works and living expense is agreeable. Covering 1750-1850 for a time period, so that's a good deal for research of the area. I haven't had much time with moving, a new job and getting settled, will try and check list on a daily routine. Will partake if I have worthy replys.
"May the spirit be with you"
D.L. Smith
Livingston, MO.
Historical Coordinator - Missouri
___________________________________
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:39:04 -0400
From: Tom Roberts <troberts@gdi.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Low Shooter
Sorry, I didn't explain the first time that this error is at only 25 yards,
thus, the large sight change dimension.
Tom
Michael Pierce wrote:
> tom:
> the squareness of the barrel is the end of the barrel use a machinist
> square and make sure it is flat and at a 90 degree angle to the outside
> of the barrel---this is the point that i said you might need to call me
> on---it's part of how you regulate a smoth bore---that is moving the
> strike of the bullet without bending the barrel or cutting or changeing
> the sight---
>
> be sure to check the crown and champher on the end of the
> barrel---(critical) it must be smooth and free of nicks--dings or
> flaws---(important) the straightness of the outside of the barrel is
> something different barrel runout will only make a difference in about 4
> to 6" maximum that is the reason for regulating---
>
> dont know how you are calculating sight change use the equivelents
> method ----your knowns are the target distance-- the sight radius=== and
> the other is the amount of error on the target---this gives you
>
> x=the required sight change
> 1800"= being the target distance (IE 50 yds)
> 39"=barrel length
> 16"= the error on the target
>
> the equasion to solve would be:
>
> x 16
> --- = -----
> 39 1800
>
> using common algebra to solve the equasion you get
> 39(16)
> x = --------- or .3466 thousands you have to change the
> sight
> 1800
>
> give me a call any evening---BTW---dont like your comment on the outside
> of the barrel thing---it might be bent already---is it low all around the
> barrel---use a straightedge and check it and let me know.
