I would venture to guess that most of us involved in this pasttime/hobby/obsession are of an age that, when we were kids in school and assigned to do historical research, we had no real option but to trot on down to what passed for a local library and search the books there for information. This was a fairly good system. A lot of what was written and published, at least in the Young Persons' area of MY local library, seemed intended as much to instill patriotic American values in young readers, as to communicate actual hard facts about our history, but where the facts were actually stated memory indicates they abided by the truth as it was known at the time. This situation got better after I was allowed to roam in the Adult section of the library, where Truth for the most part wasn't so much ignored or modified in the interests of molding young minds (I was born in 1962 and as a child lived in a version of the United States where instilling solid values and a respect for one's country were still considered worthwhile considerations).
Nowadays the instant availability of information, via the internet, presents a danger that books generally didn't, back when, as I say, if you wanted to research you visited some form of public or private library. Publishers who specialize in books concerned with fact tend to be careful what eventually ends up on a bookstore or library shelf, with their house logo on the spine; a badly-researched work full of misinformation, or a series of such works, can destroy a publisher's credibility with its target market -- and, after all, if the publisher or writer of scholarly research loses the interest of the two or three dozen people in this entire country who actually read that sort of thing, they won't be picking up any new customers from the ranks of casual readers. Unless they have a seriously-large ideological axe to grind, by the time books of factual information make it to the printers their content has been carefully cross-checked and verified. Even at that -- I long ago read a book entitled "Long Time Passing: Vietnam And The Haunted Generation" whose author, Myra MacPherson, in her Afterword made a statement that has stuck with me longer than most anything I've ever read in my life, and which I'm careful to apply even to my own efforts at factual writing -- that by definition, anyone caring enough to research and write on a nonfictional topic, is biased. Research and writing are tedious tasks and an existing strong, vested interest in a given subject is required to even begin. Fortunately, most often in the realm of actual books, a devotion to Truth is part of the near-obsession and of the publication process.
Not so on the internet. Even sites which seek to appeal to fans of true knowledge (say Wikipedia) often get the facts wrong or present them in so general a sense that to read articles on such sites is liable to be of little more use than attempting to research the Civil War using a high school history textbook. The information found will probably be correct, as far as it goes, but so limited as to actually raise more questions than it answers. Where facts are gotten wrong or presented only vaguely, seldom are there any serious, public challenges of the statements that result -- challenges that if they're made at all can be utterly disregarded by those who wrote and published the article in question, and are usually overlooked by readers.
Often the facts are treated as anything from a suggested framework, to be altered or ignored as needed, to unacceptable inconveniences that are the first things rejected when considering what the content of an internet article will be. Other times the facts are simply unknown and it seems to have never occured to the writer that facts might exist. What results from the described context is a mishmash of information, opinion, and ignorance that can range from amusing to hilarious, irritating to infuriating, to those with at least a moderate knowledge of the subject matter.
This caution most certainly applies to research of different aspects of our sport. There are a variety of sources of information that are liable to lead the novice researcher far astray. Most suspect are product descriptions written up by companies or individuals trying to sell something, which in our niche of the muzzleloading game means trying to persuade the potential buyer that a gun or other piece of equipment is historically correct. Both Dixie Gun Works and Cabela's, among others, have in various editions of their catalogs assured us that .44 caliber 1851 Navy revolvers were produced by Colt for the benefit of those who favored the handling qualities of the '51, but wanted more knock-down power. Misinformation of this sort is often passed along to and repeated by product reviewers, many of whom are then responsible for articles and columns in reputable gun and history magazines. Just as liable to result in a distorted, irrelevant, or flat-out incorrect report, where opinions and errors are freely substituted for fact, is the conviction too many gun writers share, that all that went before is by definition inferior to that which is today; I am thinking of an "American Rifleman" review, some years back, of the CVA Electra, in which the author belligerently dismissed "traditional" concerns with the assertion that if Kenton, Boone, or Crockett had had access to this weapon, they likely would have used it in preference to their flint longrifles. Bias that powerful is fairly easy to recognize and dismiss on the spot, but usually it takes subtler forms and the reader might not realize he's being fed a great turd of misinformation that has been been topped with frosting and presented as a factual chocolate cake.
Another source of erroneous information, and one I have some sympathy for (I have none for companies disregarding fact in order to sell products, or for writers whose paid work is to report honestly on those products but lack the information or the simple inclination to FIND the information to do so), are those who write up reports on their own guns, wanting to share their enthusiasm for a new or particularly appealing possession. I've seen at least two imported versions of the American longrifle described as being of this, that, or the other historical school of gunmaking, when in fact the products described had a passing resemblance at best to the original rifles. The owners of the guns simply found historical items that could be interpreted as "looking the same" as their modern rifles, and suddenly a very nice but hardly correct-as-described firearm becomes "an authentic replica of a Revolutionary War Berks County, Pennsylvania rifle" (and though I won't be so mean as to name the maker, I will point out that said modern factory-produced rifle turned up in the hands of one of Benjamin Martin's militiamen in the battle sequences of "The Patriot"). As I say, I have some sympathy for this sort of writing, being as how it's usually the product of a relative newbie to the sport who's long on enthusiasm but a bit lacking in solid information, just yet. With the enthusiasm will hopefully come further research and appreciation for the details that make a gun or other item acceptably PC. However, in the meanwhile the misinformation is out there, and other newbies stumbling across it as they search the cyber-wilderness for knowledge are liable to come away with yet another helping of turd passed off as cake.
The best thing the internet does, generally, is provide a starting point, a basis for further questions and research. The research, unfortunately for those for whom books are hard to get into, or unavailable, really ought to be done in the realm of words printed on paper and bound between book covers; even coming to a site like this one, where many of those who will post replies to questions have read the books and will freely share what they've learned, can be risky in that discussion-forum posts tend to be brief and fairly general (unlike this one that you're wading through now, wondering if it will ever end....) and often set down from memory. Also, too -- if a post seems to have the feeling that the writer is actually issuing a legally-binding proclamation, or that upon concluding the writing of said post the author spat a wad of 'baccy and is jest double-dawg darin' ya to challenge his assertions -- the information in the post might be correct but you're getting it in the form of that individual's strong and very likely biased opinion.
And, so -- approach the quest for information with the same caution you'd apply to the buying of a rifle or other expensive piece of equipment. The beauty of doing so is that, unlike shopping for something material, knowledge is forever and will not be suddenly taken off the market owing to someone else having acquired the available supply. You can wait and weigh and consider and conclude, all at your leisure.
Enjoy. I've spent years devoted to the search and have yet to find myself exhausted by or impatient with what I've come to realize, which is that I've been looking and finding for so very long and yet there is still so very much I don't know and will never know. It's a life's work well-spent, if you ask me.
IS it over??? i fell asleep... :mini-devil-28492:
Mike you have eliquently put into words another gem of truth!
Thank you!
I am going to sticky this so it will remain at the top of the pile.
Nice essay Mike, especially the point of the internet being a starting point for information that leads to more questions and research. I have long wondered if we are going to get offshoots of the variety that the dime novels of old produced, like people, places, or events being more than they really are or being made into something they are not but due to exaggerated reality like fiction based or gleaned from real life circumstances or events. Just a thought.