'Salem Bob'

For longarms, you would be hard pressed to beat the versatility of a 'Fusil Boucanier', or it's related Club butt fowler. Both have strong maritime connections, and the period of use is mid 17th century to end of the Revolution.

Elaina and all- going to chuck out an idea here that some may think heresy. First, I've been practising swordplay on a bunch of levels since 1978, in various re-enactment groups and societies. I am NOT in favour of learning foil unless you are actually going to use the form for competition on a club level. As I've taken students to learn other forms, I spend the first couple of weeks removing the bad habits they've learned from thier foil instructors. Foil, as currently taught, has a lot of artificial conventions that have nothing to do with real swordplay. Add to that, I've been injured more with foils than with any other sword form, and that includes live steel. The extreme whippiness lends itself to leaving long welts, especially in the hands of a novice trying to bring a blade back on line. The quarter sized bruises from an epee are far less painful. In actual fact, a number of us around the sword community are working with starting our students with heavy blades: Del Tins, double canelures, Armour Class blades, right from the start. Teach people with a full weight weapon righ from the start. Of course, that means that it will be some time before they get to cross blades with anyone, since they need to learn blade control first. Just an idea, but something to think about. Hawkyns Excellent point Hawkyns. Modern foil work indeed bears little resemblence to any actual technique, including the smallsword it was derived from. If a person is serious about wanting to learn actual technique, it's important to become familiar with good representations of the weaponry. Unlearning modern fencing footwork is extremely difficult for most. Then again, you and I have been to some of the same courses...

Ahoy Dreamy, Funny thing is that most hilts on antique swords are much smaller than on modern reproductions. Many ham-fisted, beef fed guys can't get their mits into basket hilts, cutlasses, or rapiers of the era. if you had limitless dosh to spend (actually, they aren't that badly priced at all, but might seem pricey to those not used to buying quality reproductions), there is "Arms & Armour"Arms & Armour Go and look at those rapiers! FOr less money, but a supurb weapon (and one that can be made specifically for stage combat), there is always Lutel.Lutel Made with a super balance, to historical designs, and made out of High carbon steel. No rat tailed tangs here (Lutel uses a constructed tang, but one that can take anything being short of run over by a Tank). I'd go with these options If I wanted a rapier that had supurb balance, historical proportions for your dainty mitts, and was actually constructed with the durability of a real sword rather than a prop. I should note that when looking at Czech prices at Lutel, divide roughly by 30 to arrive at cost in US dollars. I think they have a currency converter attatched to the site.

Is the prop hat in the movie actually leather? Or is it a wool felt hat that has been tarred, then airbrushed to give it a weathered look? There are shots in the movie where it looks like you can see a textile surface to parts of the hat, and having seen good reproduction tarred hats, that have taken a beating, they do weather a bit similar to the look of the hat in the movie.

Ahoy Nigel, My point was initially merely this - the first round of unpleasantness or unfriendlyness was directed at those who were interested in authenticity, by those who are not - as if the very existance of the one group was an offence or affront to the other. At that point, I made my own post. People throw about the term 'authenticitynazi' or 'stitchcounter' on this board fairly frequently, yet some of the most friendliest and helpful people on this board are also those most interested in authenticity. To date, by my observance, the only seeming beligerance (perhaps it was not, but it sure came across that way) was by those who seem to be against the very thought of researching something. My intent is to reign in what I percieved as a faily wild, emotional outburst, not to cause a donnybrook. Of course if broadsides are to be exchanged, I can lay alongside as well as anyone alive, and fire with a will - I'd rather not. I certainly would not decline your offer of a drink, if I could return the favour. As an aside, and on a different topic - to those who say you can't be authentic because it is too expensive, I will wager the raw materials of my clothing were much cheaper than the outfits most hollywood pirates have for the role. If one can ply needle and thread, one can put together an authentic rig for less than $50. If you aren't interested in such a pursuit, there is no shame in it - but don't make up poor excuses. As to the commentary of the SCA being too strict - I never thought I would come across people who considered that anarchic organisation too strict - you do realise that there are *no* enforced minimum standards in the Society?

...That would be the understatement of the century. Regarding shipping ice south, I believe it is a mid 19th century phenomenon - the entire ice industry coming about due to needing to preseve perishable goods being shipped a distance via rail. They were in full swing by the 1840's I believe. Leave it to a New Englander to turn a profit on a naturally occuring inconvenience in his neck of the woods.

To point 1. I respectfully disagree. There is so much evidence available as to what people wore, tools used, ect, from that era, both in extant objects in good condition, extant objects found in archaeological investigations (and so placed in a context of daily use in many cases), and a plethora of evidence in the form of good, solid artwork from the era in question, not to mention mountains of documentation running the gamut from lists of ships stores and cargo, to letters, diarys, books, ect, as to make, in my estimation, your assertion to that point almost an absurdity (the exception being the layman who has not investigated the subject, or the person who is interested, but has not come across the evidence. The individuals lacking the interest or drive to bother to find the evidence are a different case entirely). To point 2. All the occupations you cite are not synonomous, they are different, with different objectives. *My* objection being the assumption - seemingly put forward by yourself here, I beg pardon if I am in error - that the pursuit of authenticity is automatically unfun, and that somehow people who pursue same are injuring others in some fashion. Who on earth thinks they "really are" whatever they are reenacting, outside of the inhabitants of a mental institution? No one has made that assertion - it is a staw man errected to easily knock down - but it does not address the points I had previously made (makes a lovely smokescreen though). Yes, people do their hobby trying to get different things out of it. (*My* only objection is when fantasy is put forward as historical fact) That said, the reason I have commented at this juncture is that I see a statement by Gluebeard and others that is a direct hostility to those with interests other than their own, almost as if said interest was damaging in some way to their hobby. You did not address my point as to the validity of different impressions. Is the fellow I described in obviously incorrect and unauthentic costume as valid a historical presentation of the fellow who has gone to the bother to recreate authentic clothing? I am interested in seeing your response.

Ahoy Gluebeard, Hurricane, and Nigel, I'm not sure what you are driving at. Are you suggesting that since we cannot be 100% authentic in our presentations, that we should not try? Or are you suggesting that any atttempt made at portraying a pirate is equally valid from a perspective of an accurate portrayal? (i.e. they fellow with the karate pants, sneakers, frilly blouse, modern cut vest, and the 'do rag' with a skull and bones garishly printed on it is as historically accurate or valid a visual representation as the fellow wearing the sailors slops, with a wool jacket with raw edge, petticoat breaches, and monmouth cap or touque?). While pirates certainly bought or aquired items to wear and use, they would of neccessity be items available to them where and when they were - you wouldn't find an pirate of the 1720's wearing a pair of nikies, nor would you find them wearing a Greek chiton of the 3rd century BC - they would not have had access to those things (but I suppose one could make the incredibly weak argument 'if they had had them, they would have used them') Maybe I am missing something, but I haven't seen the suggestion made here that people can't play at pirates in whatever venue they like, going by whatever conventions are acceptable in those venues - the "authenticity nazis" are not on the march trying to force people to conform to their ideas. Or are you up in arms by the playful suggestion of Hawkyns and others of creating a piratical LARP with a basic set of rules for participation? One (I hope) is not required to undergo a hanging to understand or convey nautical life in the 17th or 18th centuries. Suggesting people ought be hanged for expressing their opinions on the subject, or putting forward ideas of how they can play together is hardly helpful, and more condusive to creating arguments and strife. It's not like Hawkyns or others have suggested that if you can't tell the difference between a bowline or a reef knot (or you can't tie a proper one) that you can't play at being a pirate anymore. That is all any of you (I'd say us, but I play at a privateer) are doing - thankfully none of us are real pirates, as you have pointed out.

I understand completely. She is however a replica of a ship that existed, who's bones lie off Rhode Island - I just like people to remeber that as well. What I don't understand is why they chose her over the Grand Turk, or the like, because she is tinier than the Surprise was supposed to be - IRC the 'Surprise' was a revolutionary war frigate (and yes, small and outdated when she features in the Jack Aubrey Novels), and poor old Rose was built during the F&I war, and would almost be considered a sloop of war rather than a frigate proper by the 1790's - actually, a ship of the 1750's of such a small rating would have been used up and broken up by then - it wasn't as worthwhile to keep them going as a first rate like VICTORY, almost cheaper to build anew than keep an old hogged 5th rate - they were so much liter built than a ship of the line. I know, I know, she is big compared to 'Lady Washington', and many other ships, brigs, and sloops, but when they get around to laying the keel for 'RANGER' (Paul Jones command), a sloop of war out of Portsmouth, N.H., she will be nearly as big as old ROSE. I wish somebody would build "ALLIANCE", one of the most significant Continental Navy Vessels, and rated a 36 would give those of us in the US a 'proper' sized frigate to guage size by (CONSTITUTION is behemouth frigate, and not an average representation). Has anyone heard of what the progress has been on HERIMONE? (The French Frigate that brought over Lafayette), she had her keel laid, and was ribbed and being planked in 2002, and I've heard nothing since. It is impossible to have too many 18th century ships afloat, the more the merrier...

...And here I was, under the impression it was the stem of a pipe.

Ahoy Hitman, Jones and the Continental Navy officers hated them because sailors overwhelmingly choose to sign aboard privateers or the independant State Navy ships (almost every colony had one), because pay, shares of prizes, and terms of service were all more generous than the terms allowed by Congress - and so Jones and other captains sat idle without enough crewmen to sail Continental Navy vessels, while watching fully manned privateers, often more generously armed and equipped sailed past them. The Navy suffered from the same problem, to a lesser extent during the War of 1812. As to the effectiveness of privateers vs. the Continental Navy, there can be no question that the privateers made a far larger impact on the war and British shipping in general than the handful of frigates and sloops that were the official navy. The port of Salem alone was responsible for @ 100 letters of marque, capturing over 400 British vessels, which I believe is at least 4 times the number of ships sunk or taken by the entire Continental Navy. Jones had "issues" with all and sundrey, from Congress, to his fellow captains, to the French and Dutch governments - I'd take his opinions with a grain of salt, considering his biases. His own career parallels Benedict Arnolds (being passed over for commissions and posts) in almost every aspect, save that of Arnolds treason. Both carried on their private wars within their respective branches of service. Captain Jonathan Harridan's career is far more spectacular and successful than Jones - he was less flamboyant a personality, and of course the Navy isn't going to build up a Merchant seaman with a letter of marque on the side that during routine conveying of powder and military stores took more British ships than John Paul did in his entire career. Your point is well taken regarding privateers who did not cease their careers when hostilities ceased - this was more characteristic of the last decade of the 17th century to the War of Jenkins Ear, than the fellows I was referencing of several generations later.

To load a blunderbuss, First keep in mind that contrary to popular belief, you do NOT load it with rusty nails, broken glass, etc. Imagine, if you will, a nail getting jammed cross-wise in the bore with the rest of the load trying to get past it !!!! To do it properly, you measure out the proper powder charge, which is about the same as that used in a similar caliber musket (not the large end of the barrel, but the size of the bore at the small end of the barrel). This is then followed by a thick wad of paper or unravelled rope, greased to prevent rust in the bore if left loaded and not to be fired immediately. (This acts as a sort of "piston" to push the entire load of shot out of the barrel). The wad needs to be fairly thick to withstand the pressure of the exploding powder without blowing through it and losing power. This thick wad is followed by a charge of lead shot. In my "beast" I use a couple of ounces of buckshot. If buckshot was unavailable in the old days, square lead shot could be easily cut from lead bars or thick sheets with a hammer and chisel. Another wad is then rammed on top of the shot to hold everything in place, but it does not need to be as thick as the first one. The piece is then primed, and left on half cock until ready to fire. >>>>>> Cascabel Just to add, a handful of ball of pistol caliber, or 'swanshot' were also used. Many 'blunderbusses' began life as pyrotechnic launchers - you can tell the ones as they tended to have a chambered barrel. You will find blunderbuss barells extant that saw a good 100 or 150 years of sevice, with occasional re-locking, or re-stocking. :)

I'd be interested to know more about the origins of that "Downeastah drawl". It seems to me it's often attributed to northeast/east England, but I suspect the southwesterners were a major influence. Speaking of "enhancement". My father was from Maine, albeit the North. I can't help but notice the dilution of the accent over the decades since I was a kid. However, I was in a convenience store a few years ago in Boothbay, and there was a young man speaking in the thickest Maine dialect I've ever heard, at least that I can recall. At first I thought he was putting it on, but realized he was engrossed in a conversation with the cashier, whom he knew, about his mother's house being robbed, and this was just the way he spoke. I found it quite heartening. Hi Deacon Frye, Actually, the overwhelming majority of settlers of the Bay colony were from the Southeast of England - East Anglia and Suffolk to be precise. This coincidentaly was the Hotbed of the 'Independant' dissenter churches, which came to be known as Congregationalist in New England. While there were exceptions to this rule (my fathers family came over on the second voyage of the Arabella in 1636, and settled in Essex county -Salem village or 'West parish', now Danvers they were Northumbrians, from Redesdale), the exceptions were adherants to the independant church. Maine was then a part of the Bay colony (until 1820, and the Missouri Compromise), and until the mid 18th century, immigration was strictly controlled. The congregationalist church controlled the government proper nearly to the American Revolution, and were an enormous influence on the government of the colony/then state even after the theocracy ceased to exist as one, until 1836 (the year that the support of congregationalist ministers through public taxes was abolished). Marblehead and Beverly (known locally as 'Beggarly') were exceptions as you know (fishermen from Cornwall and Devon), and their uniqueness of accent is commented on even as early as the 18th century. I'm afraid what has been diluted is the Massachusetts accent over the years, by waves of immigration, which has turned it into a flat, toneless, pale shadow of itself. When you hear a downeastuh, you are hearing something close to the East Anglian of the original settlers of the Bay Colony. You won't find very many Yankee pirates proper in the annals of piracy - the records of history show remarkably few, and most of them being forced men. The attitude of the Bay colony and it's inhabitants to piracy was negative to say the least (Rhode Island on the other hand was considered a haven, but thats one of the reasons the Bay Colony inhabitants refered to it as 'Latrina', as well as 'the isle of errors', for it's dissenting theology) - Blackbeard went out of his way to cause the suffering of any ship crew he caught hailing from there, because of the Bay colonys policy towards severity to punishment of convicted pirates (they actually had the nerve to hang them, then put them in gibbits after tarring the bodies on a mud flat in Boston Harbour). Conversely (and amusingly enough), they were amongst the greatest practitioners of privateering throughout the colonial wars, the Revolution, and the War of 1812. That probably has to do with combining the scripture 'render unto Ceasar', with the unique theological belief of the puritans that profit in an endevour showed God's favour, and indeed his will - Mass privateers (including Maine) sailed during the Revolution under a flag with the pious (or sanctimonious, depending on your viewpoint) sentiment "An appeal to Heaven", a pure white flag with a green pine tree central, and the motto above. I'm sure it was a comfort to the Anglican believers on the British merchantmen they caught by the hundred, that the rebels were piously disposed.

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, There is no doubt that the classic 'pirate accent' as thrust upon our imaginations is that of the Southwest of England (grossly eggagerated, and often with poorly choosen nautical expressions), thanks of course to 'Treasure Island', and most recently continued with 'Pirates of the Carribean' - fortunately, Barbossa (although with a most Un-Cornish/'Zummerzet'/Devon name) and Mr. Gilbert speak with a far more realistic approximation of said accent - not exclusive to mariners, but once widespread amongst farmers, sheperds, and miners in tin mines as well. I found it interesting as well that Barbossa had another SouthWest of England trait - an uncommon stong fondness for apples (usually translated into fondess for cider drinking), and he only went 'over the top' with that last 'ARRRRR' of his, coming after Jack Sparrow in his final moments of his life. As an aside, the 'aaaaarrrrr' is a quiet phrase used almost as a verbal punctuation of agreement amongst the countryfolk of the Southwest, used similarly to the New England 'ayuh' (which itself has about 9 forms, and is most often a quiet 'yuh' or 'eeyuh' - not the over-the-top 'Ay-yuh' that poor, gross imitations by non-New England actors use). My Grandmothers father and mother were both natives of Cornwall, and although my Gran was born in the US, and lived here all her life, she retained some of the peculiarities of speach akin to the Southwest of England. The country folk retained the 'thou' (more like 'tha') well into the 20th century as well.

Aye Cap'n, But Sea-Service muskets wern't strictly speaking 'brown bess(s)'. The Ordinance board laid out very strict regulations concerning precisely what the land service musket would be, and it's quality. The Sea-Service muskets onthe other hand were often cobbled together out of odds and ends, not uncommonly with beach (considered an inferior wood) stocks. The official lock for the Sea Service musket was a relic of King William or Queen Annes days in design (up until the 1770's), being a flat lock plate lock, with an earlier style cock (hammer), the pan not having the fence marking a lock of decent quality, and the furniture being simpler and cruder. Most were stocked their full length, until the Admiralty board ordered their stocks cut back, to be able to accept a bayonet in the year 1752. I have seen any number of odd barrel types on British Sea-Service muskets, including Dutch and French barrels, and even antique matchlock barrels. Most sea-service muskets were jappaned black, over all surfaces, and the finish of the barrel being 'blackwork and file finish', not bright - 'bright' muskets were known and listed in ships stores. Perhaps they rate - 'black-besses, cut rate, and cobbled together out of the lowest bidders spares'. :) Now Marines muskets were indeed 'brown besses' - they were issued to the marines as if they were a land establishment, but these were often of an older pattern (wooden rammers prevailing for a long time), and were as the 18th century progressed given a simpler pattern the Ordinance board designated "Marine & Millitia" pattern, showing precisely where the marines rated in terms of quality of equipment issued. (edited to correct a date, 1752 was the year sea-service muskets were ordered to be able to accept bayonets)

I would respectfully suggest thet privateers ought not be considered pirates in considering Mahans principles (or just in examining Early Modern to Early 19th century history - actually late 19th, if one considers that New York issued letters of marque for the Spanish American War, and indeed some of these letters of Marque took prizes). Pirates are/were meraly seagoing theives who stole from all and sundry they could lay hands on, without any restraint outside of their own opinions - often attacking and stealing from their fellow countrymen, and operating in tiomes of peace. Privateers and letters of marque are in essence armed forces on the order of a naval militia, answering to a government and abiding by a set of recognized rules and conventions (other than private rules they concocted on their own), and attacking the armed forces and disrupting the shipping of an enemy force - not randomly attacking all and sundry. Colonial privateers in the various wars against France and Spain, or in the American Revolution were akin in spirit and legal standing to the armed militias supplementing the regular armed forces . There is a world of difference between that and piracy.

The HMS ROSE (please) is a middleing sort of frigate size-wise. The ship is a replica of one built in the 1750's, and would have been outclassed by the frigates of the time she was supposedly built in the Movie - they have her representing a ship of a generation later in M&C. She is tiney in comparison to a typical frigate of the 1770's (32 or 36, poor ROSE was rated 24), nevermind to the USS CONSTITUTION - she looked like an armed tender in vicinity to her. PROVIDENCE, which was built a few years later, and is still fortunately here in New England, was built with less compromises below-decks than ROSE. She is allegedly supposed to be returning to Rhode Island (eventually) - the original HMS ROSE has an interlinked history with that State and the history of the Revolution.

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, Not Hawkyns, but to pipe up here, a hat with a large brim interferes with what you have to do to work the ship. If you are talking Elizabethan, the 'cavalier' hat is right out anyhow, and your Frobishers and the like would be wearing those awkward looking affairs between a tophat and a sugarloaf for a formal hat. Only the captain or another ships officer would be dressed so finely. People who actually are more than mere passengers aboard the ship (which ought be the whole crew), would be wearing something less cumbersome, that they would not be ruined in the environment of tar, salt water, and the like. Monmouth hats, stocking caps, thrum caps, 'muffin hat' berets and the like would be what a sailor would be wearing, they would not be weaing what a pack of 'farmers' or horsemen would be wearing. The Thrum cap in particular is pointed out in Elizabethan literature as the mark of a mariner. I suspect that a ships officer (in England, where they were actual seamen at any rate, unlike the lubbers Spaniard put in charge of their ships) would be wearing much what the rest of the crew was wearing at sea, only putting their more formal togs on for going ashore (as did all sailors), or for a formal occassion in the great cabin.

Why not use the historic sailors solution, the ditty bag? in canvas or macrame, you can't go wrong, and it doesn't look as silly as carrying a cup on your belt. They can be fairly small, and sling over your shoulder.

Ahoy Izzy, Regarding flintlocks and their legal status. They are *not* considered firearms according to Federal law (they are considered 'antiques or collectables', and are exempt from federal firearms laws, as indeed all pre 1898 designed blackpowder weapons that do not have a self-contained metallic cartridge are). About the only places you will have problems with *open* carry of such relics are possibly New Jersey, New York City (and some state parks), and crossing the border into Canada. If you have the firearm carried in any way constuable as 'concealed carry', and the local constabulary is looking for an excuse to take you in, then you can indeed be in for a world of hurt legally speaking. A Ren Fair might well have some obtuse regulation, contradictory to State or Federal regulation, demanding not posessing one while attending (as may some local ordinances, which are likely in violation of both Federal Law and State Constitution in most cases, and begging to be challenged) - they might be able to eject you, but they cannot have you arrested for possession of the firelock (so long as you are abiding by whatever state regulations cover possession of said blackpowder weapon), unless you do not leave quiietly and open yourself up to a 'disturbing the peace' charge. If they had you arrested, they could open themselves up to a wrongful arrest suit. I have never seen or heard of anything that a reenactor would recognize as a reenactment where time period appropriate firearms were forbidden - it's kind of hard to have what is by definition a reenactment without them. The only exception being Canada, where one cannot bring a blackpowder muzzle loading pistol across the border that is functional - you could legally bring an otherwise fully functional one across the border that did not have the touch hole drilled. I know dozens and dozens of reenactors personally who bring fully functional blackpowder muzzle-loading firearms across the border either way (Canadian or American citizens), without the slightest bit of trouble. They are far more concerned that said reenactors are not being paid for putting on a demonstration (requiring a green card for a Canadian citizen in the US), or actual contraband is being sent across the border without a proper duty paid - they don't look twice at the musket, but say 'oh, your a reenactor - have a pleasant stay'. this is all post 9/11.

Ahoy Gunner Hawkyns, Alas, Col. Garnier is French, and his work is in same. His work unfortunately is rare - I bought it from a Parisian bookdealer once, but the Post Office driver peeling open an 18 wheeler over the expressway in Boston unfortunately destroyed said copy before I've ever had hands on it. Lovely late 19th century book destroyed. I have some brief excerpts photocopied. Hall has the references for the handgun cartridges, which are Swiss, and are in German. I think Embleton might have them on the 'Online Dragons' on the Company of St. George (Swiss) website. I think we have ran into each other at the Higgins once, you had attended one of our shows (Company of the Wolfe Argent, 'How a Man schalle be Armed') - if we run across each other at some point, I'll give you copies what I've got.

Hi John, I think you have the right of it regarding official USN distribution . It was certainly the last hurrah for the M 1860 other than as a decorative fan in an Admirals cabin - the thing is that photos exist that show Marine NCO's, and occassional Army personel in the Pacific war with a M1917/40 strapped on. Gilkerson tried to research to see if they actually saw any use (other than being lugged around, or as a machette), but was unable to find further dertails - he did come across the alleged use by the Engineer NCO in Korea. Apparently the Army issued them as dress sidearms for NCO's in Engineer units up into the '60's (which explains the Korea incident), and ditto for ROTC.

Ahoy Redhand, I haven't read all 12 pages of the topic, but 'fairly be ye warned sez I', the Loyalist "Dutch 17th century" cutlass is a model 1801 French cutlass - it is identical to the "French cutlass" they offer. It is a very good cutlass and an excelent bargain. So if it is an early 19th century cutlass you are after, then that is for you. A Dutch cutlass of the 17th century would either have a shell guard (or double shell), or be a brass heavy cast hilt with a 'dog headed' monster with scales on the grip. See Gilkersons "Boarders Away -with Steel" for an easily obtainable overview of the subject.

Ahoy Deacon Fry, Take a good look at the Deepeka blade, it's form and length, and then the cast sword. In the end, we both are right - the hilt is undeniably a French sword of the 'horse', but it has been put upon a short spadroon or cutlass blade - it is a bastardised thing. Those getting the sword (it being not a blade for combat) could accurately recreate it by taking the hilt of the Deepeka cavalry broadsword, and getting a infantry hanger (1742 British would give a most similar patterned blade, and of the correct length - you can get them for between $50-$75) from a similar source, and mating the two. Deepeka could likely even do this for much less than buying two swords, should an inquerry be made. They could bill it as 'Carribean pirate cutlass' or some such, and sell them hand over fist. That is much to great a length of sword to consider walking a deck in.

Ahoy Misery, That is just nonsense as far as the legalities of the issue, unless you were in New Jersey, New York city (or a State Park), or crossing the border to Canada. According to Federal Firearms regulations, pre 1898 designed black powder weapons that do not use metalic cartridges are not legally considered firearms. (Collectables and Antiques) The Police would not arrest you (at least justifiably so - if they did, you would likely have had to have made a nuisance of yourself) unless you had the weapon concealed on your person - then you could be arrested for concealed carry. A sea service pistol with a 12" barrel boldy thrust through or hanging from a belt is hardly concealed. On the other hand The Fair has every right to dictate the code of what can and cannot be carried on it's premisis, and the conditions of carry - they could have you ejected from the fair for breaking those conditions, but they could hardly have you arrested - were they to do so, they and the police department in question would open themselves up to a wrongful arrest suit. That siad, when in Rome, do as the Romans. Right now it is fairly easy for reenactors to own and carry the blackpowder weapons that are neccessary to their hobby - the last thing we need to do is have people rocking the boat, and associating such weapons with troublemakers and illegal activities.