As the person who actually “coined” the term “fantasy rifle”, I feel somewhat justified in wading into this discussion, mostly to clarify the actual origin and definition of the phrase once, and hopefully, for all. For those who took up Gary’s offer to go to his website, the origin is basically covered there, but I will make a few minor clarifications.
At the time I was hired at Colonial Williamsburg in the late 80’s, Gary, Richard Frazier and I, in particular, had a lot of discussions about what making authentic longrifles really meant. We kicked a lot of ideas around as we sought to sort through the definitions of words like “authentic”, “replica”, “reproduction”, “historic” and others, and how these words might honestly be used to describe the variety of different longrifles being produced by contemporary makers, including ourselves.
In the midst of all of that, one day I picked up an Atlanta Cutlery catalog that someone had left in the break room. While thumbing through, I found what I thought was something significant. They sold a variety of “historic” sword replicas, such as CW swords, samurai swords, Rev War swords, etc.. In another section, they had a different variety of swords. These were the kind that were common in the “Conan the Barbarian” and other “Swords and Sorcery” kind of films that were popular in the 80’s. These were sold under the heading of “Fantasy Swords”. It struck me that here was honest term that could be used to divide contemporary longrifles into two initial categories, those which were historically based, and those whose design origins were mostly the modern creation of their builders.
On the surface, the two types of swords were remarkably similar. They all had polished steel blades and decorative hilts. They sold for roughly the same prices likely even were made in the same factories. The differences were in their inspiration and intent. The “historic” swords followed the patterns of swords made in specific times and places. The “fantasy” ones used the same basic types of parts and configurations, but their designs were not limited by time and place. Their designers clearly had a knowledge of historic examples, but the swords were composites of historic traits and designs, freely intermixed with 20th century inspirations. If you showed a picture of a “fantasy” sword to a collector of antique swords, even at a glance they would have been able to identify them as such. They simply were not tied into the historic timeline. But most important, they did not claim to be. Atlanta Cutlery had correctly and honestly categorized them.
I should say that in some cases, they even looked cooler than the “historic” examples. They appeared to be of equal, if not superior, finish to the “historic” examples. The term “Fantasy” was not applied to them as pejorative or insult by Atlanta Cutlery. It was merely an acknowledgement that if you were looking for a sword to carry as a Confederate cavalryman, you were in the wrong section. If you were looking for a pretty thing to hang on the wall, impress your friends, or battle Orcs, you had hit the jackpot.
The term, in spite of its misapplication in the 20 plus years that followed by well meaning others, is not about if the barrels are forged of wrought iron or made of steel by Getz, or if the finish is 18th century or poly, or if the gun was precarved, or made with hand tools, or if it were sanded or scraped or with any other issue related to those. It was not about if it were funky, folky or sophisticated, plain or fancy or how many barrels or oddities. It is merely a way to divide contemporary longrifles with the same initial honesty that Atlanta Cutlery used. The simplest test of the difference between a “fantasy” rifle and a “historic” rifle is the same as I described for “fantasy” swords. If a knowledgeable antique collector or student took a look at your rifle, would they truly think for a moment that it could have existed in the period it purports to be from? This is not about if it is aged, cloroxed, rusted and is dripping with faux patina. It is about if the “look” and “feel” of the mounts, the lock, the stock, the decoration, the whole package, fits within the historic timeline that the maker claims.
I have been shown rifles by contemporary makers that were self described as “fantasy” rifles, that I would have actually categorized as “historic”. They were not exact copies of original rifles, but their “feel”, their “look” as well as their components and decoration were so firmly rooted in historic American riflemaking schools, that if it were tossed into Mr. Peabody’s “Way Back” machine and transported to the 18th century, they would fit right in. I have also observed rifles that were purported by their makers to be “historic replicas” that dripped with modern features, designs, innovations, etc.. It was clear from 20 feet away that these were completely modern interpretations that could not have existed in the 18th or 19th centuries and would only be at home in the 20th or 21st centuries. In other words, a modern "fantasy". I have also seen rifles that I myself could not fully categorize as historic or fantasy as they sat firmly on the fence between the two. But there are not many of these. Most contemporary work can very quickly and easily be divided between "historic" and "fantasy" pieces if you don't have a dog in the fight.
Ironically, I am the first to admit that fantasy rifles, unfettered by time and place, when executed by good smiths who have a feel for design, can be some of the most artistic, beautiful and well crafted rifles anyone would want to see or own. I actually have a notebook with patchbox and carving designs for fantasy rifles I intend one day to build.
So why even pick about the difference between fantasy and historic contemporary longrifles? My concern about the terminology than and now is specifically related to the market for our rifles. If a maker is creating for collectors and shooters, then if the gun is a fantasy or historic is a matter between the builder and his customer to negotiate. If, however, the intended customer is a historical reenactor, or the product is created in a museum setting and purported to be representative of a specific time and place, then I think we, as builders, need to be more up front about what we build and what we call it. I believe rifles made for historical reenactors or other historically based purposes need to be defined differently than work for shooters or collectors or those simply made after our own whim.
The term “fantasy rifle” is not a judgement of validity, quality, or value. It is not even about technique or material or most of the other things it has been "fantasized" to be. It is merely a way to broadly categorize one particular type of contemporary longrifle expression from another particular type of contemporary longrifle expression, inspired by terminology found in an Atlanta Cutlery catalog about 1989. If anyone tells you any differently, I am pretty sure they are wrong.
And I think I should know…
Alan
