| Author |
Message |
Jason Mather
|
 Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 5:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Alain D. wrote: | When loading a smoothbore or rifle, is it necessary to use a smaller ball than the actual bore size in order to fit or does a .75 bore musket use a .75 ball? I've heard that the British would sometimes use balls down to .69 in a .75 bore barrel for a quicker rate of fire (someone else may be able to verify this). Does patching change the size of the ball that must be used?
I like some of the muskets available on the Military Heritage website, but I can't tell if they are worth their price. Does anybody know anything about the quality of their products? I've heard horror stories about people losing hands and going blind from black powder guns blowing up. |
With patching, you seem to have the right idea. I avoid the whole deal by wadding my smooothbore. There actually isn't any historical evidence of patching a smoothie. Paper cartridges really work quite well.
Those India and Pakistani distributors make an affordable, safe,functioning product. The aesthetics are so-so to bad, with an occasional nice one. If you want something that really represents something historical hire a custom builder. There are small (and not so small) details that the production shops miss. Pederosoli isn't a bad option for a production shop but they miss the historical mark too generally.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
They seem to have been popular among eighteenth century Indian warriors who used them with their regular tactics. Its hard to know just when they started using them and what the proportions of different weapons were like.
There may have been units of riflemen in some of the 18th century German armies but I'm not sure. One disadvantage of using both rifles and muskets is that every different type of ammunition, training, spare weapons, and spare parts you have to keep supplied makes logistics harder!
|
|
|
|
|
Alain D.
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you all so much again for the responses. This is very helpful.
Are the Pedersoli Frontier, Pennsylvania, or Kentucky rifles accurate representations of American long rifles? And when and why did barrel bluing come about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alain D. wrote: | Thank you all so much again for the responses. This is very helpful.
Are the Pedersoli Frontier, Pennsylvania, or Kentucky rifles accurate representations of American long rifles? And when and why did barrel bluing come about? |
Not really. Pedersoli does much better with cartridge models like the Sharps. Their Northwest gun and Hawken aren't too bad, but the architecture of a classic long rifle is very difficult to create using the manufacturing techniques required by quantity production. To get an authentic long rifle you almost have to go to a custom builder.
Bluing has been around for at least 300 years and perhaps longer. It is a controlled rusting process that protected the metal on which it was applied and also provided an attractive finish.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kenworthy
Location: Saugus, MA Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Feb, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the relative accuracy of smoothbores to rifles, there is a popular misconception that down through the ages military beauracrats were resistant to rifles because they were blinded to their obvious superiority by tradition, logistical problems, and similar non-tactical reasons. This is disproven by the massive amount of testing that various European armies did in the 18th and 19th century on the various firearms available at the time.
See for example the quote in my post in Smoothbore Musket Accuracy from the test the French did in 1851 at Vincennes. They concluded that there was no difference in effectiveness between rifles and smoothbore out to 164 yards. And yet, despite that they still re-equipped all their line regiments with rifles. This was also concurrent with their reorganization of their infantry drill to emphasize skirmishing in open order and also coincided with their rifling all their muzzleloading field artillery.
European armies were always looking for ways to increase the range and rate of fire of their infantry shoulder arms. Whenever they found a method that did not compromise some other characteristic of the weapon, they enthusiastically adopted it. The Prussians adopted breech loading rifles in the 1840s and were completely converted by the mid-1850s. The French, Austrians, British, Swiss, Kingdoms of Italy, and the US all adopted rifled shoulder arms at about the same time. This was because Captain Minie had figured out a reliable way to rapidly load a rifle from the muzzle. This invention swept all the major European armies in about 5 years.
By the way, the first English colonists to settle the Massachusetts Bay Colony brought 10 long fowling pieces in their first shipment of 100 firearms for their militia in 1629. They recognized that early on the advantage that accuracy had in skirmishing in wooded country. The woodsman with his long rifle (or long fowler) was a tradition over 100 years old in the English colonies by the time of the Wars of the Austrian Succession.
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Mather
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Feb, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Fowlers are certainly not rifles, fowlers are smoothbore by definition. Just to clarify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kenworthy
Location: Saugus, MA Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Feb, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alain D. wrote: | When loading a smoothbore or rifle, is it necessary to use a smaller ball than the actual bore size in order to fit or does a .75 bore musket use a .75 ball? I've heard that the British would sometimes use balls down to .69 in a .75 bore barrel for a quicker rate of fire (someone else may be able to verify this). Does patching change the size of the ball that must be used?
I like some of the muskets available on the Military Heritage website, but I can't tell if they are worth their price. Does anybody know anything about the quality of their products? I've heard horror stories about people losing hands and going blind from black powder guns blowing up. |
Modern black powder guns will not blow up unless you do something really stupid. All the Italian manufactures, like A Uberti, Davide Pedersoli, Armi Chiappa, and Euroarms Italia, are required to have their barrels government proofed. That includes firing them with over-charges. In 15 years of live firing I've only seen one barrel failure and that was caused by somebody double loading the gun. By double loading I mean they put in powder, a ball, then more powder and then another ball. The end of the muzzle opened up like a flower, but no one was hurt.
Regarding ball size: first off you need to know the land to land dimensions of the bore. Then you need to allow for the patch. For example, the Pedersoli Pennsylvania Rifle (available in percussion or flint) is .450" land to land and .462" groove to groove. It takes a .440" patched round ball over 60 grains of FFF powder. All the modern manufactures will tell you the recommended ball size and powder charge for their guns. These are recommendations for best accuracy, not for safety. You can safely fire more than 60 grains of powder, it just won't do you any good.
Black powder deflagrates, instead of detonating like a lot of explosives. Deflagrate is the technical term for burning really fast. If you overload most black powder guns the extra powder just gets expelled from the muzzle before it has a change to burn. It looks real spectacular as it burns in the air, but it creates no pressure in the barrel. There is no point in loading more powder than will burn before the ball leaves the barrel. In many cases there is no point in even loading that much powder, because you will not significantly flatten the trajectory of the ball at practical ranges. For example, I load my original 1861 Springfield rifle musket with 32 grains of powder for target shooting out to 100 yards. The gun was designed for a 60 grain charge, but the extra 28 grains doesn't improve accuracy at short range and increases the recoil.
You should pay attention to the F# recommended for the gun. That indicates the grain size of the powder. F powder has larger grains than FFF powder. The grain size affects the burn rate, so the smaller the grain size, the faster the powder will burn and the faster it will develope pressure in the bore. Do not use finer powder than the manufacturer recommends. Using coarser powder just means that some of it will come out the muzzle without burning.
The only real danger with firing recent-manufacture muzzle-loaders is having a round "cook off" in the barrel while you're loading it. If you are loading a percussion gun, leave the hammer down on the spent cap while loading. That will prevent a draft in the barrel while you are ramming. You can't do that with flint locks and match locks, unfortunately. Other precautions include keeping the muzzle tilted away from your face and not placing your hands over the end of the rammer; pinch the rammer or scouring stick between your thumb and index finger, never push it down with the palm of your hand.
You might want to check out Dixie Gun Works at www.dixiegun.com. They sell modern reproduction long rifles, used custom made long rilfes, and original antique long rifles. You can compare the pictures and specs. of mass produced, custom, and original pieces to see how they differ. They include a lot of information about ball sizes and charges, too.
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Feb, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alain D. wrote: | | I've heard that a tight fitting ball with little windage can be very accurate in a smoothbore, but that such balls were often not used for the sake of speed. When tight fitting balls are used how does the accuracy compare with rifles? And when firing a muzzle loader, is it safe to fire with anything that will fit down the barrel, or can tight fitting balls get stuck and cause explosions? I've heard many accounts of black powder muzzle loaders exploding when fired. |
| Quote: | | When loading a smoothbore or rifle, is it necessary to use a smaller ball than the actual bore size in order to fit or does a .75 bore musket use a .75 ball? I've heard that the British would sometimes use balls down to .69 in a .75 bore barrel for a quicker rate of fire (someone else may be able to verify this). Does patching change the size of the ball that must be used? |
I suppose you're aware of the ongoing discussion in another thread ( http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight= )? Its subject may be one or two centuries too early for you, but many of the issues have been discussed there in some detail.
Oh, and about black powder weapons blowing up: it didn't seem to have happened very often at all even back in the bad old days when those guns were used, let alone now when people can benefit from modern metallurgical and metalworking knowledge. So as long as you follow the excellent precautions already outlined by the other posters here (in addition to standard gun safety procedures) you'd stand only a minuscule risk of blowing yourself up.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Of course the earlier problem with Rifles is they could not really take a bayonet plug, making them far less effective in melee combat, but this changed 100 years or so before the revolutionary war. |
"Less effective in melee combat?" Not necessarily so. For one thing, bayonet charges happened all the time but actual hand-to-hand fighting with the bayonet happened only rarely, if at all. In (almost) all cases of successful bayonet charges, the target ran away before the charging bayonets could reach them. So I'm not sure that the bayonet can be characterized as a "melee" weapon since it simply didn't get frequently involved in Hollywood-style confused "melees."
On the other hand, the bayonet wasn't necessary for hand-to-hand fighting. The musket's butt was already a more-than-adequate tool for this purpose. In my personal opinion (which, unfortunately, isn't yet backed by comprehensive research), the bayonet's major contribution was that it gave the wielder the idea that he could keep the enemy at a distance and the pointed blade also gave a stronger reassurance against the eventuality of hand-to-hand fighting, so it doesn't take as much morale to advance with presented bayonets than to launch a headlong charge with clubbed muskets. (And I get the impression that it takes a bit more room to swing a musket's butt than to thrust one with a fixed bayonet, though the difference might not really be that big.)
I guess the problem with the Revolutionary riflemen was less a matter of equipment than of habit. If you were a hunter accustomed to operating alone or in very loose formation, it'd take a lot of time to get used to the idea of standing together in close formation and charge with rifle-butts poised. Better let the Regulars handle the hand-to-hand stuff while you keep sniping from a distance.
|
|
|
|
|
Alain D.
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Feb, 2009 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | | Alain D. wrote: | Thank you all so much again for the responses. This is very helpful.
Are the Pedersoli Frontier, Pennsylvania, or Kentucky rifles accurate representations of American long rifles? And when and why did barrel bluing come about? |
Not really. Pedersoli does much better with cartridge models like the Sharps. Their Northwest gun and Hawken aren't too bad, but the architecture of a classic long rifle is very difficult to create using the manufacturing techniques required by quantity production. To get an authentic long rifle you almost have to go to a custom builder.
Bluing has been around for at least 300 years and perhaps longer. It is a controlled rusting process that protected the metal on which it was applied and also provided an attractive finish. |
I would love to go to a custom builder for something like this, but it's not really in my price range. How do Lyman and Traditions rifles compare with Pedersoli? Or simply, what's the most historically accurate flintlock rifle on the market under $650?
Again, thanks for the responses everybody.
-Alain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alain D. wrote: |
I would love to go to a custom builder for something like this, but it's not really in my price range. How do Lyman and Traditions rifles compare with Pedersoli? Or simply, what's the most historically accurate flintlock rifle on the market under $650?
Again, thanks for the responses everybody.
-Alain |
Alain...
Your quest for an historically accurate F/L rifle for under $650 is, unfortunately, a very difficult one. The closest I have seen to what you are after are the Blue Ridge Rifles being sold by Cabela's but they miss the mark too, since they are made by Pedersoli. One thing you will get with these rifles is an excellent quality barrel. Traditions rifles are not, imho, even close and the Lyman aren't much better in that regard.
An option for you is to visit the Track of the Wolf web site. Track offers new and used rifles of all types, both mass-produced and custom-built, on their site. They also have all the accessories you might require for a new gun. The site is www.trackofthewolf.com. They have an examination period for anything you buy from their site so you are only at risk for postage if you order one of their guns. However, finding one for $650 or less will be problematic.
Good luck...
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
Last edited by Lin Robinson on Mon 16 Feb, 2009 8:18 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Gregg
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: $650 F/L guns |
|
|
Alain, you might also want to sign up on Frontierfolk.net message boards. They have a trading post area that sometimes has good deals on black powder guns. Also, I have a nice basic fowler from E.T. Harrison that I paid close to your price for. PM me and I'll try to get you two in contact. If you ever plan a trip to one of the NMLRA events in Friendship, Indiana, he sets up there, as well as other custom makers with great deals. Good luck!
Christopher Gregg
'S Rioghal Mo Dhream!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gentlemen,
I've been reading a book entitled CRUCIBLE OF WAR By Fred Anderson and to those of you interested in the French and Indian Wars and that period of history I recommend it highly. While I haven't finished the book yet, one of the things that caught my eye was the mention of the use of rifles not only by colonial British Militia but by some British Troops as well.
I have to admit that I am somewhat frustrated in that the author doesn't give the detail I would have liked about the rifles and I don't know enough about them myself to fill in the blanks.
The author's thesis is that the French and Indian Wars laid the groundwork for the American Revolution and he is making a very good case for his argument.
Best regards,
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kenworthy
Location: Saugus, MA Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | On the other hand, the bayonet wasn't necessary for hand-to-hand fighting. The musket's butt was already a more-than-adequate tool for this purpose. In my personal opinion (which, unfortunately, isn't yet backed by comprehensive research), the bayonet's major contribution was that it gave the wielder the idea that he could keep the enemy at a distance and the pointed blade also gave a stronger reassurance against the eventuality of hand-to-hand fighting, so it doesn't take as much morale to advance with presented bayonets than to launch a headlong charge with clubbed muskets. (And I get the impression that it takes a bit more room to swing a musket's butt than to thrust one with a fixed bayonet, though the difference might not really be that big.) |
According to the pros, a clubbed musket is a very poor substitute for a bayonet. The first purpose of a bayonet on a muzzle-loading shoulder arm (uses of the bayonet with magazine loaded automatic weapons is a different story) is to protect against cavalry attack while unloaded. Forming square with clubbed muskets will not resist a cavalry charge. When forming square during the 18th, and most of the 19th century, the men formed in two or three ranks. The points of the third rank reach over the first rank. When clubbing muskets, only the front rank can hit the enemy, and then only at the risk of clubbing the second rank.
In use against infantry, the clubbed musket also has a number of serious drawbacks. Just like in resisting a cavalry charge, receiving a bayonet charge with clubbed muskets means only the front rank can defend.
Secondly, clubbing the musket takes the barrel out of line. The most effective way to defend against a bayoney charge is to volley into the attackers at point blank range and then counter charge into the smoke. Clubbing requires inverting the piece in between shooting and attacking.
This is less of an issue when executing a bayonet charge. It is better not to stop to fire when charging because it is extremely difficult to start the line forward again once it stops. French, British, and American drill manuals of the 19th century all specifically prohibit ordering an attacking line to halt before it makes contact with the enemy. Also, the bayonet is not carried in front pointing at the enemy during a bayonet charge; the weapon is carried at a port because this is a more natural position for running, especially across broken ground or over field works. The point is only lowered when a target is encountered. This also prevents rear ranks from bayoneting front ranks by accident. There is no tactical equivalent of the glacial procession of a pike block or the press of pike with bayonet charges.
In skirmishing, the pointed bayonet will always beat the clubbed musket for the same reason that a thrust with a rapier will beat an edge cut: the shortest line to the target is the fastest.
One reason that I found interesting that was pointed out by the Prussians after the Franco-Prussian War was that clubbing a musket will frequently break off the butt at the wrist. Even if you win your first encounter, you are disarmed. c.f. Prince Kraft zu Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen's "Letters on Infantry."
Regarding morale, the experience of officers was that clubbing was the natural tendency of soldiers in the heat of battle and that it required quite a bit of drilling to get them to use the point in preference.
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Alain D.
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions Christopher, but I'm not sure how soon I'll actually be able to purchase a flintlock, so I'll have to wait until I have time and money for it 
Paul, that's interesting info about the bayonet charges vs. clubbing, but I'm curious what you mean by they were drilled to "use the point in preference". Does that mean that they would poke or jab the enemy with the barrel itself?
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Larsen
Location: Chandler, AZ Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You might want to check out this http://www.longrifle.ws/ for flintlocks.
Jeff
"It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience." Julius Caesar
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Alain,
Remember the old adage, "Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten"
This is very true when it comes to flintlock rifles, so save your money and buy the best you can afford. Nothing is worst than a flintlock that won't spark or work... 
I've had a Overwhelming Urge to buy a golden age longrifle for the last few months... 
I've been poking about the internet and found while you can score a few "later period" Bean style rifles and those of that ilk (Poorboys) for $700 up, a plainer earlier style long rifle can run between $1100-$2000.
Start looking for some nice carving & engraving the rifles quickly shoot (hehehe  ) up to the $2000-$4000 range. (With some rifles running far, far more.)
Here is a place to watch, over the last 6 weeks I've seen a handful of nice, plain, longrifles come though in the $1100-$1400 range. Track of the Wolf
There is a Classified section over at a Muzzleloading forum that you can find used flintlocks from time to time at good prices. Link Plus, they have a ton of data on the "how to" of care and feeding of your planned purchase.
Cheers,
David Teague
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Alain D.
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I completely agree on quality. I've been looking at some of the muskets / rifles offered at Early Rustic Arms, which appear to be good quality, but I don't really know the difference between a flintlock that costs $800 and one that costs $3000. Also, how difficult is it to put together a kit? Would someone with no experience doing a job like that be able to do it? Or is it safer to pay the extra to get the finished product? What kind of work is involved in putting together an average musket kit?
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Alain,
You're asking a lot of questions that might best answered at that other forum... IMO.
Early Rustic Arms has a "rep"... you might want to do a search to see what I mean.
I've been a black powder shooter for about 38 years . I started off with junk that went bang (or not at all in the case of my first flint lock. ) I learned the hard way that if you buy good quality it will last a lifetime (or much longer if cared for) and if you buy junk, it will be a wall hanger in no time.
I also learned that you can buy well made factory percussion firearms, but the flintlocks often don't work well... with the big exception to that rule being the military smoothbore muskets. The Italian reproduction muskets can be quite nice.
| Quote: | | I don't really know the difference between a flintlock that costs $800 and one that costs $3000. |
Other than the price? Lots... quality of parts, quality of craftsmanship, the amount of handwork that went into the piece.
You might want to do a bit of reading to understand what the different "schools" of the longrifle mean to a finished rifle. There are quite a few companies who offer part kits that are billed as a "Popular Name of Longrifle" school that bear no real resemblance to that smith's work.... or quite match any period style. Not all parts are well made.
Poke around the Track of the Wolf site, each firearm has it's own page with close ups of both metal & wood work. You should be able to tell the difference pretty quickly. Google any phrase that you don't know to find out what they mean.
I've never tried to build a rifle.... I did try to build a Trade gun, but figured out quickly I lacked the skills to do it. You'll find that to build even a plain style rifle will require you to buy a quite a few tools... thus negating any money saved. The worst part is...
you can take $600 worth of parts and make them $300 worth of parts after ruining the stock. (Don't ask how I know this  )
People who build muzzleloaders tend to do it as part of their hobby. I like to shoot my firearms not build them as part of my hobby.
The real question is:
Which do you want more... to learn how to build flintlocks or learn how to shoot flintlocks?
Answer that, and then ask the pertaining follow up questions.
Cheers,
David Teague
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Alain D.
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thanks David, that's very helpful information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Tue 17 Feb, 2009 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alain D. wrote: | | I completely agree on quality. I've been looking at some of the muskets / rifles offered at Early Rustic Arms, which appear to be good quality, but I don't really know the difference between a flintlock that costs $800 and one that costs $3000. Also, how difficult is it to put together a kit? Would someone with no experience doing a job like that be able to do it? Or is it safer to pay the extra to get the finished product? What kind of work is involved in putting together an average musket kit? |
The difference is the quality of the parts/materials, and the quality of workmanship. American Long Rifles were made by various "schools" of gun builders and there are both subtle and major differences among them. Basic things to look for are the wood to metal fit, i.e. is the inletting tight and clean, flat spots on the stock - there should not be any on a well-made gun, whether there is an excess of wood on the stock - there should not be. Those are three very basic things to look for. When you get into it a bit more then you can look for more subtle clues to good quality. That takes research and, if possible, hands on study of the guns you are interested in.
Kits, for the most part, are not as easy to assemble as they seem. And, to put one together so its value will exceed that of its parts is not easy. If you are interested in going that route, check Track of the Wolf, or with Jim Chambers. The kits from these two sources have better quality inletting and parts. That does not mean they are any easier than the mass-produced kits from some of the foreign makers. Track has a preassembled kit on their site right now.
Putting a kit together will require scraping, sanding, finishing the wood with stain and an oil finish and finishing the metal by polishing, bluing or browning. There are browning solutions on the market that are fairly easy to use. You will need a selection of chisels, files, possibly a drill press with assorted bits and even some specialty tools, like inlet scrapers. Many long rifles were carved for decoration, which will require a number of different chisles and the skill to use them to produce relief or incised decoration. If you want to engrave the metal, then you need gravers, a chasing hammer, layout white, etc. A good set of rifflers and needle files are also needed. Are you discouraged yet?
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic