Good to see young(er) people passionate about collectible firearms and history in general. My favorite comment to curious people at the range is “we robbed a museum on the way out here, you want to shoot it?”. Not every great example belongs in a museum, most are in private collections and are enjoyed by their custodians and their friends & family. I personally don’t feel like I truly understand a firearm until I’ve fired it. In many cases I’ve also dismantled/reassembled it, loaded ammunition and in many cases cast bullets for it. I love museums but to date none have offered me that level of experience. 

Mike

I have to admit that I did not watch most of the video.  I have heard as many horror stories about museums as gun dealers.  I’m sure many are on the up and up.

When a lot of museums get a gun they basically do what they want with it.  Show it or not, sell it or not and in some cases the guns go out the back door.

Louis Luttrell said
In my lifetime the content of museum “display collections” has changed from “all out” repositories (forgive the psychology babble) of all manner of cool stuff into “educational displays” catering to the lowest common denominator.   

One of the most fascinating regional history museums in this country used to be the Adirondack Museum in Blue Mt. Lake, NY.  I was spellbound, mesmerized, the first time I visited it, & many subsequent times, because so much of the content pertained to hunting, fishing, guns, canoes & small boats.  Then the professional historian who had for many yrs directed it, a man, was replaced by a woman who made it her mission to “make it more accessible” to the average mindless tourist–that’s when the dumbing-down began in earnest, stupid interactive displays, & the like.  Finally, because the very word “museum” was felt to be off-putting to the average mindless tourist, the decision was made to change the name; it’s now called the “Adirondack Experience.”

Would it be irrelevant to note that about 3l4s of the staff are women, as seems to be the case in so many museums? 

I recall museums being packed to the gills with so many amazing artifacts, and I would agree this would have been before the days of the internet.  Many unique items from which one could gain a wealth of knowledge from just in an afternoon visit.

Now, you have a few objects highlighted due to the absence of much of anything else.  How museums used to be, well, a great example of this would be Sir John Soane’s House in London.  I don’t think how that collection is presented can be altered:  https://www.soane.org/  I have been there many times, although not fairly recently, and I doubt anything has been changed.  I think that unless one visits these small museums, mostly a house such as this one, one is subjected to these dumbed down museums, which is why I have not visited many recently.

The problem is twofold.  One is trying to appeal to the masses, the masses being a group of individuals now who have never known a time before the internet for many of them, or if having existed before the days of the internet, certainly not before the days of television.  Their attention span is little more than that of a television commercial.  To appeal to those, one must have lots of open space–nothingness–featuring a few select objects.  I recall in a short stint creating advertisements for a local newspaper nearly 30 years ago now that I initially crated advertisements cramming as much in as possible.  The general public cannot handle that.  What often is more effective is limited type, limited graphics, with lots of white space.  Check out advertisements in periodicals or newspapers catering to higher end clientele and you will see what I mean.  That same mentality is necessary to cater to a larger number of the general public in order to fund their operating expenses through admissions fees.  Yes, a select number of individuals will desire a more in depth experience, but that is the rarity and not the norm.  This was discussed in the video to some extent.

The other problem is that those running museums today likely have a Master’s Degree this being in a field that traditionally does not pay all that well.  I took some art history classes in college and would have had an interest in doing this as a career, but I wised up REAL quickly.  I did not possess the means to exist on a meagre salary, if not for many years while pursuing my degrees and gaining experience, then possibly for a lifetime.  I simply could not go that route as I did not have the means to do so.  Having said that, with my newly minted college degree, I did submit my resume to Sotheby’s in New York City and did not hear anything back which, in hindsight, is not surprising.  Also, I think individuals pursuing this route generally, although not always, need a degree from a more prestigious school, as the individuals they will be working with, if not the staff of these museums, then the wealthy donors, will have attended these schools.  I did not attend the type of school that would allow me access to these inner circles.  I’m certain it exists, as there is a sort of snobbery, subconscious or otherwise.  So, these individuals eventually hired with their Master’s Degree at the museum level will have likely attended these exclusive liberal arts universities, institutions that by their very nature tend to be liberal and anti-2A by their very nature.  There’s a good chance individuals pursuing this route come from means and, in my experience, having worked for some families over the years with old money, they tend to be quite liberal.  This seems contrary to what one would think, but it is usually a product of their educational institutions, such as Yale or Harvard, if they are anything other than extremely elderly these days.  If one has attended University since the 1960’s, which makes only those at least approaching 80 these days somewhat immune, one would have been enmeshed in a liberal cesspool that allowed for little diversity beyond liberal “ideals” and “institutions”.  Interestingly, earlier generations of old money, some of whom I worked for as well, these individuals having been born as early as the late 19th Century, were more fiscally minded and, therefore, more conservative. 

These individuals running museums, coming from wealth, perhaps, but most likely from a very liberal liberal arts background, it’s no wonder that museums have been dumbed down and that displays that do not promote liberal ideals are likely doomed to failure.  Without sounding too radical, one thing I have noticed about extremely liberal individuals over the years is that they want open mindedness and pretend to be open to everything, until your views do not mesh with theirs and then they don’t want to hear anything you say.  Counterintuitive…but very true in today’s society.  A GREAT example is the recent destruction of Confederate statues, and other statues, that do not agree with their views.  Very sad…

Also, through independent research I have identified some individuals from high profile families who sit on the boards of some of these museums, and seem like nobodies, but they come from old wealth and it is obscured due to marriage or from maternal descent which obscures the family that provided them unlimited wealth.

Also now that I think of it, museums, just to survive, are going to have to appeal to wealthy donors.  These individuals having become wealthy usually due to an inheritance or white collar existence, both of which involved a stint in a prestigious (meaning liberal) institution somewhere.  Their anti-2A sentiments run very deep.

Not particularly good anywhere, from what I can see, for most institutions wanting to feature firearms exhibits or for individuals wishing to donate firearms related artifacts to a museum.

Very interesting and informative discussion.  Personally, I have had no experience with museums.  However, I have known many collectors over the years who have had extensive experience with museums.  I know that every single one of them said they would never consider leaving their collections to a museum.  

Hi Logan-

Thank you for the feedback. I think it’s helpful for our members to get some insight into the “museum business” from a curator’s perspective.  The few artifacts to which I was alluding are each unique, historically significant (to WRACo), and have impeccable provenance.  There may be a “conversation” with a museum one day and we’ll see… 

I was KIDDING about it not being possible for a decent firearms museum to have <75 Winchester M70s.    IMHO you couldn’t have a decent “pre-64 M70 wing” of a museum that “told the story” with many less than that, but the same would be true of any Winchester Model (or any number of other firearm). 

Were you alluding to the M70s held by the NRA/Bass Pro Shops Sporting Rifle Museum?  Those I need to see…  You think they’d give me a tour of the back room?

Best,

Lou

I would love to see a display of a massive number of Model 70’s, so I would be one to advocate such.

However, I am in the minority.  In order to appeal to John Q Public, probably only one or two are necessary to display before he gets bored.

Maybe it is best to deacquisition them and sell them at auction to someone who might actually enjoy them?

mrcvs said 
In order to appeal to John Q Public, probably only one or two are necessary to display before he gets bored. 

If John Q Public wants to see a M 70, he has only to visit a good gun shop, or gun show, where he can not only see, but handle, one…or several, probably  Though I love owning & shooting them, seeing a “massive number” of them on a wall, under glass, would be, to me, a total waste of time since in any good firearms museum, a visitor has only so much time to attempt to examine everything.  I visited the NRA museum about 40 yrs ago; if these 70s were on display then, I walked past them as fast as my feet would carry me.