AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Ohioan on October 23, 2008, 05:51:47 PM
-
Other threads got me to wondering about the Golden Mean. I've seen it explained a few times. Math was never my strong point.
Any of you mathamuticians want to take a shot at explaining the golden mean and it's applications to gun building?
-
There is a whole book about this by Patrick Hallam. I am no expert, but the golden ratio is the key and is a+b/a=a/b=1.618...it has to do with proportionality, especially in architecture of buildings and in growth rates in nature...
-
An interesting book and an interesting man! I still have a gorgeous knife blade that he made for me just shortly before his passing.
From his book when used for designing rifles, according the Golden Mean, if the length of pull was known, you could then work out the placement of the cheekpiece, the nose of the comb, the length of the butt plate to the toe, patch box size and finale to door proportions, etc.
Use of the Golden Mean would put all the components in the proper proportion to one another to make a completely harmonious whole.
In his book, I believe he even described how to make a caliper to measure out the proportions.
It’s been a while since I looked at the book, so might be off base on some of the above.
I think the origins of the Golden Mean go back to the old Greek dudes.
John
-
I do think it goes back to the Greeks.
It's a tool for designers, craftsmen, architects, etc, to get your proportions set up right.
You can use it on rifles, furniture, houses, etc.
You can use it as an aid for laying out your work. I think it can be useful, but if relied on too heavily, it can become a crutch instead of trusting and developing your own sense of judgment. I don't use the Golden Mean, but choose to train my own eye, and rely on that for my proportions.
There is bound to be a lot of controversy over this topic, but really, it's a matter of personal preference whether you want to apply it or not. You can't really argue over preference.
-
The golden mean is an attempt to translate beauty into a mathematical equation. Every time I have been shown a practical example of it, It almost fits but rarely exactly. It can be made to fit almost any object by moving the reference points around. In my opinion it is the Da Vinci code of the art world. After listening to 35 years of intermittent explanations [almost] all have come up short to one extent or another.
Even if it were so, I can't see the necessity. As far as I'm concerned , when you get $50,000 for a gun it fits the golden means. The means to get the gold.
-
Oh, Jerry, you kill me sometimes.
Acer
-
I think the craze of using the Golden Mean as related to gun building got started when Barry Bohnet
published an article in the JHAT. Before that you never heard any body utilizing it for gun building.
I don't think the old masters used it either. They relied upon training and the art and style of their time.
The proportions they ended up with coincidentally approximate the golden mean. I don't think they designed any guns using the Golden Mean as the only criteria. Just something else to write a book about or create a class and relate it to gun building IMHO.
-
I bought Pat Hallam's book after sitting in on his seminar at Dixon's about 5 years ago. I came away thinking he really uncovered something or was a little off his rocker. His book breaks down a lot of rifles using 3 to 5 ratios and it's quite interesting. I'm glad I bought it. He sure had a passion for the Golden Mean, and I appreciate anyone who has passion for what they are in to.
-
The Golden Mean is What one makes of it. If you are artistically inclined ( and use the "Force" of nature) by God you can hit it pretty close every time without thought... If not artistically inclined, get dividers but they most likely won't help.
You see it is easy to lay the golden mean to .....let's say a long rifle, and come out with a fair equation ...however this is arbitrary "Cheek to butt stock " "Return to Butt Plate" etc. Looks real nice in publication but go ahead give it a try: 3 to 5 of what? What is the 3 and what is the 5? You will spend more time figuring it out then building.
I have been a very successful international Commercial photographer for 40 years & I tell my assistants "You learn the technical but you are born with the artistic" IMHO
Jim
-
I'm really glad to see the posts questioning the value or application of the "golden mean". I doubt that the old guys working on the frontier were that sophisticated.
I have been an Industrial Designer for the past 40 years and have never heard of any of my collegues using that type of mathmetical tool for figuring proportion of any two or three dimensional form. If any of them had a caliper or some tool to lay out that ratio in Design School, it would have been confiscated.
I tend to think a lot of it is coincindental. The artist/craftsman knew what proprotions were correct - he didn't need to calculate it with some fixed ratio.
-
Now I'm just a poor hard working country boy, and I don't understand all that I know about the Golden Mean and even that's not much ;). I do know that it goes far, far back in antiquity. The pyramids were built based on this mystical number....all of them....Egypt, Meso America, southeast Asia. The Myan calendar is based on it somehow. It's also tied in somehow mathmatically with the square roots of 2, 3 and 5, and like these three numbers it will never divide out to zero whereas all other numbers and combinations of numbers will.
Fellow named Michael Schneider covers it pretty well in his classic book "A Beginners Guide to Constructing the Universe." Everything in Nature is tied to the Golden Mean somehow....spiral nebula in space, the concentric rings of snail shells, your skeleton, everything :o
-
I did measure some of the guns I had at the time against the Golden Mean, and they generally fit the ratio closely, even on very differently styled stocks such as Lancaster vs Lehigh.
Whether the old makers used such a rule I can’t argue one way or the other, but I think it might be useful to new builders to help get the proportions close to correct.
However the artistry will still need the artists hand.
John
-
I'm really glad to see the posts questioning the value or application of the "golden mean". I doubt that the old guys working on the frontier were that sophisticated.
I have been an Industrial Designer for the past 40 years and have never heard of any of my collegues using that type of mathmetical tool for figuring proportion of any two or three dimensional form. If any of them had a caliper or some tool to lay out that ratio in Design School, it would have been confiscated.
I tend to think a lot of it is coincindental. The artist/craftsman knew what proprotions were correct - he didn't need to calculate it with some fixed ratio.
Exactly.
The object LOOKS right laid out to match the Golden Mean.
This does *not* mean that the formula was used to lay it out.
If it were necessary for gunstocking it would have been mentioned someplace before the 20th century.
Dan
-
It can really fall to $#*! when trying to truly fit a gun to a body that is somewhat not in proportion with the golden mean. :D
-
"Everything in Nature is tied to the Golden Mean somehow....spiral nebula in space, the concentric rings of snail shells, your skeleton, everything " woodsrunner.
Don't forget Big foot and flying scaucers. It almost fits them also. SOMEHOW.
-
The Golden Mean is also related to The Fibbonacci Sequence of numbers that are used in stock and commodity trading. And the Elliott Wave theory . Not to dispute anything Jerry says but I would say that the ability to draw well and in pleasing proportion is a bit like the person who has perfect pitch, it's natural to them and sounds like bs when you try to explain it. On the other hand it does appear to be too prevalent in too many areas of nature and science to ignore it.
-
I find the conversation about the "Golden Mean" as used here quite amusing. Acer is right, the term "golden mean" does come from ancient Greece. The Athenian philosphers coined the term to refer to the ideal average; a mean is a mathematical average. the golden mean was applied to alsorts of things but mostly to people. If you look a classical Greek statuary will find that none are fat or short, too tall or too thin. The Athenian philosophers were convinced that the ideal person was one who was both atheletic and educated, not too tall nor too thin, not too heavy nor too light; that there was something ideally beautiful in being centered between the extremes. If you were too bookish and not athletic enough you were less balanced and less ideal. Hence the term "golden mean". The Spartans, a competing city-state, had a differing philosophy that celebrated the extremes. The two city-states and philosophies competed for almost 1000 years.
The Greeks also were great mathemeticians and they recognized that the 3, 4, 5 right triangle, and its multiples, was the only triangle were the ratio of the sides to each other were simple whole numbers. They were so intrigued by this that these ratios became the basis for "classical Greek archticture". The ratios of the walls of most classical Greek buildigns are in ratios of 3 to 4 to 5. So much so that the 3 to 5 ratio is often considered "classical proportions". The ancient Greeks discovered that most humans find something inherently attractive in objects that manifest a 3 to 5 ratio of its proportions.
What astonishes me is how a term that rightfully refers to one concept has been co-opted to refer to an entirely different concept.
I just build what I feel is aesthetically appealing.
Best Regards,
John Cholin
-
Well.... here it is, finally! When Patrick Hallam finished his book I bought it, ingested it, thought about it and then tried to make sense of what I read. Funny thing is, at this same time I had begun my research into European pistols for what became my new line-up at MBS. I called Pat to let him know what I had found and he was as excited as I was. We talked about getting together. Then he passed away.
You cannot discount this proportion and here is why: the Europeans were anal about its usage to assist them in all design. Its usage goes all the way back to the design of the pyramids in Egypt. Michelangelow called it the "Golden Proportion." What is the common mistake today is we have bastardized the calculation. Its not really 3:5 as we are told. Thats just close. But its not close enough for a European! Who were our original masters in gun building? Europeans. The 3:5 proportion is good enough for the art world and general aestheticaly pleasing representation, but this discrepency made me look deeper because I build. What I found changed everything I do. They did use it, and I can prove it. "They," being our first masters who were taught the trade in Europe then came here. (Basically, I figured out how the "discrepency" led us down this argumentative path). I have been teaching this in my school and putting on seminars at Friendship about it. But it is definitely real, it was indeed used, and has become my task to teach how they did it.
If you know your customers measurements, the firearm was then individually designed. The trigger pull, cast-off, drop to heal, drop to comb, combined with the barrel and lock on hand in the makers shop. A gunmaker usually had the barrel and lock, and his "school" of mountings he preferred, whether he used castings or forged them himself. The barrel and the lock combination were the initial starting point. If the contract was for military arms, then I believe they used a pattern to make duplicate arms; but not for an individual order.
I have made dividers (now available in my shop) built to exact GM which are a size that make it easy to lay out a longrifle. When you use these, and start checking out all the firearms in Rifles of Colonial America, Volumes 1 & 2 which focus on the earliest arms, you will be in for a shocking 98% exact layout. That folks, is proof. But please remember this; barry Bonet is right about one thing. In his frustration with people being too perfect minded he recently told folks to throw the dividers away and please look at the art of the object. Well, do remember that, but also remember that dividers are an aid to us to make it look good. Not everyone can "see" it. But the Masters became Masters because they were anal about perfection. Other makers never got to be as good. Why? because they settled for less!
I'm going to put on a school on this guys. It can make a good builder a master, and any maker much better. Why not learn it?
Susie
-
In his frustration with people being too perfect minded he recently told folks to throw the dividers away and please look at the art of the object.
Not everyone can "see" it. But the Masters became Masters because they were anal about perfection. Other makers never got to be as good. Why? because they settled for less!
And IMHO, this is the crux of the controversy. "Art." Some people have a natural eye for line, form, and proportion. Most people don't, though they do recognize good lines and proportion once it is presented to them.
I suspect that the masters became masters because they recognized the art form of their trade, where it is possible that the lesser builders only saw a job; a way to make a living. I suspect that passion for the art form and an eye for the sublime are what made the masters.
IMHO, the eye can be trained to recognize and replicate good line and form, and if teaching and learning the golden mean can do that, then why not study a technique or approach that may enhance one's abilities, artistic or otherwise?
Just kinda thinkn'...typin' out loud, so to speak...type.
J.D.
-
I am not known as a fan of the use of "the Golden Mean". The article in JHAT drives me nuts. The author "found" the "golden mean" in several old guns by placing his reference points wherever he needed to in order to achieve the fabled 3:5 ratio! His gunlock drawing showing the "golden mean" used on every part is simply wrong (measure it!).
Besides, this 3:5 ratio is supposed to be what is generally naturally most appealing to the eye....well, is it any wonder then that you find this ratio here and there???
In SOOO many places, the 3:5 ratio is simply impossible, and in other places, it DOESN'T look right! An octagon to round barrel with a 3:5 division gives you a barrel with a really long octagon section (a 48" long barrel would have an octagon of 18"...a 42" barrel would have a 15 3/4" octagon...a might long, I think).
-
Susie, you cannot go by the photos in RCA; the lens distorted the proportions. This must be accounted for when you study and dimension the guns in theses photos. Do not use these photos as 'prrof'. It's vital to use the actual object for proving out something like this.
Had I been trained in the Arts in France, two hundred years ago, the Mean may have been one of the things ground into my thick skull. It would have been part of my required subjects. I think this training would have come with the some of the masters who came to this country. Did they teach it to their journeymen? Did they have calipers?
To me, the Mean is merely a stepping stone, it is not the only way to cross the creek. Some wade, swim, take a boat or the bridge. Some folks stay dry, while others are all wet.
-
Most flags are 5x3.
I just don't think anyone sat down with 3:5 dividers and really measured out everything. If you can't make an attractive rifle by eye, dividers and rulers probably aren't going to help you. ;)
-
I am not known as a fan of the use of "the Golden Mean". The article in JHAT drives me nuts. The author "found" the "golden mean" in several old guns by placing his reference points wherever he needed to in order to achieve the fabled 3:5 ratio! His gunlock drawing showing the "golden mean" used on every part is simply wrong (measure it!).
Besides, this 3:5 ratio is supposed to be what is generally naturally most appealing to the eye....well, is it any wonder then that you find this ratio here and there???
In SOOO many places, the 3:5 ratio is simply impossible, and in other places, it DOESN'T look right! An octagon to round barrel with a 3:5 division gives you a barrel with a really long octagon section (a 48" long barrel would have an octagon of 18"...a 42" barrel would have a 15 3/4" octagon...a might long, I think).
I don't want to hurt anyones feelings here. But I run up against a closed mind fairly frequently. Unfortunately, I can't "show" you here. I'm really serious guys and tried to explain it above. Its not 3:5
thats the "art" form. Isaac Haines and JP Beck used it to the correct and did it with dividers. A corrected set would show you a whole new world. Try setting it to 3: 4.854
Again, its art to help something look wonderful to the eye.
Anyway, I'm sorry to hit a closed door with some of yall, but it is what it is, and the good dividers laying out perfectly can't be a coincidence!
ANd by the way, when laying out an octagon to round, the divisions can and were in multiple locations. They weren't hit and miss. And the majority of the time the maker started his layout with the breech of the barrel.
Susie
-
I agree with Acer and Stophel. Most of this B.S. started from that JHAT article.
People selling dividers and such should put them in the classifieds or read only ads.
-
In SOOO many places, the 3:5 ratio is simply impossible, and in other places, it DOESN'T look right! An octagon to round barrel with a 3:5 division gives you a barrel with a really long octagon section (a 48" long barrel would have an octagon of 18"...a 42" barrel would have a 15 3/4" octagon...a might long, I think).
If you have a 50 inch barrel on a fowler and you place the entry pipe using the golden mean for location the entry pipe will be 19 - 20 inches up the barrel from the breech. Looks like $#@*. Definitely not a place to use the golden mean. There are also other places on rifles and fowlers where the golden mean just doesn't work.
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
I don't discount it entirely. It is the most attractive division for many things, but the point is that you should be able to arrive at it naturally by eye (assuming any kind of artistic ability. If you don't have it, rulers and dividers aren't going to transform you into a Rembrandt.). Adhering to this magic ratio for everything won't get you an attractive gun. In many cases, the ratio is simply impossible. In many cases, it is UNattractive.
I have never even attempted to use the "golden mean" on any of my guns. I'm sure that somewhere on them you can probably find a 3:5 ratio for something.
And my guns are among the most beautiful I've ever seen. ::)
-
Well I hate to be disagreeable to the naysayers, but it does fit.
As I mentioned earlier, I measured several of my rifles with varying stock designs, and most fit quite well.
Now it’s many a moon since I did this, but I don’t believe it was used by picking one point on the rifle and measuring from there, and having all pertinent points fall in the 3 to 5 ratio. More like doing the ratio from the breech to the nose of the comb, then from there, the cheek piece placement could be found using the 3 to 5 ratio,,, or something like that.
I also remember that it wasn’t just a simple exercise that any bumpkin that rolled off a stump might do, although, well, I did it!
And true, even if it does work it won’t make you a J P Beck,,, you still need the hand or the artist. But it’ll likely show you where to put the ckeek piece, then you just need to make it look like Becks.
John
-
I am open to seeing material that is factual about the use of the GM. Until then, this is really an opinion contest. I admit it, I am right in the thick of it.
Thank you J Cholin for the discourse on Greek and Roman history, and the origins of the Golden Mean.
Acer
-
In SOOO many places, the 3:5 ratio is simply impossible, and in other places, it DOESN'T look right! An octagon to round barrel with a 3:5 division gives you a barrel with a really long octagon section (a 48" long barrel would have an octagon of 18"...a 42" barrel would have a 15 3/4" octagon...a might long, I think).
If you have a 50 inch barrel on a fowler and you place the entry pipe using the golden mean for location the entry pipe will be 19 - 20 inches up the barrel from the breech. Looks like $#@*. Definitely not a place to use the golden mean. There are also other places on rifles and fowlers where the golden mean just doesn't work.
Randy Hedden
That wouldn't be how you would locate the entry pipe and I don't think I said that anyway. The entry pipe locates the same as the tigger pull. The proportion on the barrel is simply a beauty guide to assist in an aesthetic location for the wedding band. I'm sorry you guys are so touchy about this, and my research has been on originals as well as pictures. Whatever. I thought this was an open forum to teaching. Gunmaking is half art and half mechanical and that can't be ignored.
Sorry to offend. I'm done.
Susie
-
And my guns are among the most beautiful I've ever seen. ::)
;D I don't think your guns are as beautiful as my unbelievably gorgeous Dickert rifle! ;D
And I hope that no one gets they're feeling hurt over this Golden Mean thing.
If I was home, which I'm not, I'd do some measuring and post the pics to prove it!
Joihn
-
I also hope that no one gets offended with this thread. I have found the discussion to be quite interesting. I have learned a lot from it. Thank you all for the information that comes through this site, it is a great resource for people like myself who are just learning.
-
I think everyone here are big boys and girls, and no one's feathers will get too ruffled. As said on another thread . . . we can agree to disagree. I picked up copies of Hallam's "Seeing Through the Eyes of Yesteryear" and the KRA Red Book at Dixon's this year. My jury is still out on the subject, so I am enjoying the discourse.
-
That wouldn't be how you would locate the entry pipe and I don't think I said that anyway. The entry pipe locates the same as the tigger pull. The proportion on the barrel is simply a beauty guide to assist in an aesthetic location for the wedding band. I'm sorry you guys are so touchy about this, and my research has been on originals as well as pictures. Whatever. I thought this was an open forum to teaching. Gunmaking is half art and half mechanical and that can't be ignored.
Sorry to offend. I'm done.
Susie
Susie,
I don't think that you have offended anyone and least of all me. This forum is a forum for discussion and that is what we have been doing on this subject of the golden mean. I don't think anyone here is touchy about the subject, but we are all entitled to have an opinion, yay or nay, about believing in the use of the golden mean as a tool in building rifles.
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
I am not offended.
But I am off camping for a couple of days, so I will have to come back to this next week.
Acer
-
I didn't know about Hallam's book, but I'll certainly get a copy right away. I assume ordering it from Sue Hallam, Shiloh, Ohio is the way to go....that's the only info that I could find on the books availability. The KRA Red Book that you mentioned: is that the KRA's "Selected KRA Bulletin Articles" published in 2005, or another KRA publication?
This topic is an excellent learning opportunity IMO, and I don't think anyone who uses their heads to think will get upset at other's views and opinions. In fact I think our discussion is an excellent example of something Plato pointed out way back in 427BC.
Plato said that man went through four distinct phases in developing his intellect. At first he was in a state of total "Ignorance", and didn't even know that there was anything to know! The second phase was that of "Opinion", and this could be broken down into two subcatagories, right opinion and wrong opinion. Next up the line in development was"Reason", and here a man would realize that it was necessary, through education and study, especially in mind-sharpening subjects such as mathematics...the old 1.6180339887 Golden Mean kinda thing...to progress to the next level ie "Intelligence"!
In reading the posts that have been made on the Golden Mean, I have SOMEHOW ::) formed the opinion-right or wrong-that some of us are hung up in the early "Opinion" phase while most have advanced to the "Reason" phase, and one or two, as was Patrick Hallam, have reached the "Intelligence" stage! Usually,IMO, those among us who attempt to educate the unknowing have achieved the "Intelligence" phase!
-
Woodsrunner there are a lot of intelligent people here, whoops or is that their stage?
Lots of people including myself have read the book and many other sources. There is also that 30 years of gun building experience as well, for me and lots of other people here on this board. We are all still learning,
learning something with every build. I think the irritating thing , at least to me is someone selling their dividers, a class,etc., etc. etc..
Acer is right though, I want to see proof as well. I've never seen any proportional dividers listed in any books or in actual inventories. I've seen a lot of them and did a lot of research when I lived in Pa.
I can't see Jacob Dickert using Golden Mean dividers, trying to fulfill his govt. contracts. It's experience and the way he was taught as an apprentice.
Oh, I forgot the guilds in Europe, I guess the head Homie had a set in his pocket to check all the members work with or they wouldn't get their journeyman papers.
Wood, I'm not picking on you , you just got me started on this dissertation as you were the last poster.
-
Another good source for anyone wanting to see how the old masters really put together a design is Chippendales book on furniture design. Not sure of the exact title but you can probably Google him and find it. Interesting thing about him was that he wasn't actually a woodworker and some of his designs really don't take into account things like grain direction or wood expansion. Lots of Chippendale furniture is a nightmare to keep in one piece. The artwork is good though.
-
An Engraver I know just recently sold a gun for about $100,000. If he only would have known about the golden means he could have made some real money. I wonder if Plato had a computor. How many guns did Plato make anyway?
-
I think the irritating thing , at least to me is someone selling their dividers, a class,etc., etc. etc..
There may be members here that would be interested in a set of dividers and/or classes but didn't know such things existed. If someone that offers such things DIDN'T say so, they would be doing themselves as well as the other members a dis-service.
I want to see proof as well.
I doubt that.
-
I think the irritating thing , at least to me is someone selling their dividers, a class,etc., etc. etc..
There may be members here that would be interested in a set of dividers and/or classes but didn't know such things existed. If someone that offers such things DIDN'T say so, they would be doing themselves as well as the other members a dis-service.
I want to see proof as well.
I doubt that.
Thank you for that. It wasn't meant to try to sell anyone anything. Its meant for education which is the focus of this forum and why I am here.
I first made those dividers for myself after reading Halams book. Interesting thing happened. When I made them, I used the 3:5 and sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't. I was frustrated and began to doubt it too. About that time, I hired this machinist (machinists tend to be anal about perfection), and when I told him I wanted him to make me some he started researching the GM. Later he came in and handed me "his" set. Well, they didn't match mine! They were an 1/8" off in 5 inches. Really freaked me out. I went back in and threw them on his desk and proceeded to stick my foot in my mouth. He informed me mine were wrong! Thats when all the light bulbs went off. And thats when all the original specimens I began to measure, along with ROCA, began being so "on" that it became no coincidence.
Take it or leave it! Its real. But I do really wish I could demonstrate it. But if I'm so wrong, I'm in outstanding professional company (both yesteryear and today) and it doesn't bother me one bit! I don't think I would be invited to teach it at Friendship if it were wrong. Oh yes, and there are records of proportional dividers in collections; John Manton had them.
Susie
-
Woodsrunner, The "Red Book" is a nick name for a book published by the Kentucky Rifle Association in 1967. The title of it is, "The Kentucky Rifle, A True American Heritage In Picture".
It's basically a picture book, but it shows some nice photo's of rifles that belonged to KRA members at the time. The original red book is long out of print, but a re-print was done in the 1980's by the Forte Group, that one is out of print as well. By the way, the re-print has a dust cover and the book is black. :)
Frank
-
Wow, I never expected to see such an esoteric discussion on a gun-building site!
Much of the Golden Mean information was kept alive (or created, depending on your view) by Freemasonry. And it is a very useful tool to obtain elegant proportions, since that 3 to 5 Ratio seems to bring a nice balance to things.
Freemasons were very much a part of early America (and Europe as well) so this kind of instruction was rather common among craftsmen. Of course, the subject of Freemasonry itself can open up a whole 'nother can of worms! But many early gunmakers had ties to Freemasonry, so that would explain how they knew this.
I use the Golden Mean as a way of seeing if I'm getting close to a nice balance in my work. It seems to work very well for that, though I don't get anal about it. I have noticed that if something just doesn't look "right," it's often well off of the "Golden Mean." The closer you stay to it, the more well-proportioned your work seems to be.
So the Golden Mean, in my opinion, just another handy tool to keep at your side.
David L
-
Leaving the non informative irrelevant posts aside, I’m not suggesting that the old makers used the Golden Mean and/or a set of calipers to lay out their guns. Just as not all contemporary guns are gorgeous pieces of art or proportions anywhere close, nor are all originals. Some guns catch the eye as being just right, and others fall far short.
The only point I’m trying to make, and from the measurements I did on some of my old ones, is that the ones that look just right seem to follow the ratio of the GM. As mentioned previously, some guys have an eye for art and pleasing proportions, where others don’t. I once had a Kentucky made by Lewis Ghriskey. Now this guy made a lot of government contract rifles that suited the government just fine following the pattern, but he obviously didn’t follow that pattern for a Kentucky rifle, and the gun I owned was certainly no thing of beauty! Even though the patchbox and the cheek inlay were copies of Derringer, the gun was still a clunker. Obviously the guy had no eye for art or proportion, whereas J P Beck might have never heard of the GM, but didn’t need too,,, he was just born with it.
Now you guys that have been making guns since the start of time certainly aren’t going to change your way of doing things because of the Golden Mean, nor do you need too. But I still think its use might help the new builder that hasn’t been born with the eye for making a gun that looks just right, might help him make one that looks just right.
Only my 2 bits of course,
John
-
or a spiral that follows the golden mean proportion instead of the Archimedes's proportion. Most visible in nature such as the chambered nautilus sea shell. If you watch the Wallace Gusler DVD about carving, you find out that a set of carving gouges made in the 17-1800s made the same volute when placed edge to edge in order. I found a set, and it is amazing how the fit the contours of many patchbox and sideplate designs. You can design a well proportioned carving pattern by laying out the design with you chisels. The carving gouges from Grizzly tool are your best best for low cost set.
-
Man, I didn't realize I'd open such a can of worms.
You guys are OPINIONATED!
I love it!
Anyways....
So for someone who is just about to start building their first rifle from a blank, like me, would the Golden Mean be something usefull to get a well proportioned rifle? I've spent about a year researching, I built a Kit Gun, and now I want to build a gun from the blank. But I worry about making the rifle look "right". I'm not an artist, maybe a craftmen, but I definately don't have any training.
-
I think that it is a good tool for one to use for helping you towards your final goal. I believe that the early builders in this contry used it be cause this is how they were trained. I don't doubt they thought any thing of the laying out of the general shape of the butt stock whether by pattern or calipers. I think you couldnt go wrong to use it in your study.
-
Ohioan
The easiest way for you to do it is --find a photo of a gun that looks great to you and scale yours to the same scale. Everybody with an opinion is opinionated. What good is someone without an opinion??
If every gun fit the so called golden means] --- they would all look the same except for the frills. But then the frills wouldn't fit the golden means. Is that boring or what??
In my 50 plus years of gun making , I have been unable to find any reference to the golden means in any of the 18th century or 19th century gun making books from Europe or the USA. I have about $25,000 worth of gun books. The first I heard of it was from Gusler sometime in the 70's, if I recall correctly. Somebody please show me a gun connected reference from the [ OLD MASTERS].
-
The Golden Mean!! I just have to add my little bit here. I have read Barry Bohnet's article and Pat Hallam's book and found them quite interesting. But I do have some problem in applying the Golden Mean slavishly to a gun. The problem I have is that in all of the writing about applying it to a gun it appears to me that the author is trying to find measurements that are in the Golden Mean. What you get is that it is applied differently to each gun. Having said that, I know that when I have a tough decision about placing something, I will use it.
The main thing is that if it looks good, it probably is in the Golden Mean and if it is in the Golden Mean, it looks good.
But don't get too hung up on the Golden Mean.
Bruce
-
Guys... the dividers are simply a tool to assist the eye with the beauty. Some folks can see it and some can't. Its a help-aid. The gun is always built around the barrel and the lock. We all know that is our starting place. The dividers are simply a tool to help to determine points of placement, like the nose of the comb where it dies into the wrist, a handmade patchbox to the right proportions on a handmade rifle, handmade sideplates, etc. Notice here I am saying handmade. Dividers are fast. No calculations are necessary. Originals are rather small and are everywhere in collections in Europe. I think they were as common as the pencil and just not considered anymore cause of mention than a pencil. Anyway, its interesting this is causing such a stir. Its not like anybody is twisting arms to make you change! Its just a way to fine-tune.
Susie
-
Susie, I find this concept intriguing. Would you mind posting a photo image or a drawing of what the calipers look like with some dimensions?
-
Susie, I find this concept intriguing. Would you mind posting a photo image or a drawing of what the calipers look like with some dimensions?
I just make these out of 1/8" x 3/8" flat stock, same as we make our chisels out of, so that the tips could be hardened. The most important dimension is making sure you are dead on center when you drill to install the axle. This is critical to center it.
I make my rough overal length of both legs in the neighborhood of 14-1/2" long.
Then drill the axle at 3-3/8 (leave a tiny bit more in case you over-do the pointing). Point these shorter legs along the outer surfaces, but leave the inside alone. Use a screw with a nut so it will hold while you complete the final step.
What you are after here, is to fix the axle with the short legs on exactly 3 inches. This opens the opposing longer legs. Point these longer legs at 4.854 inches while those shorter legs are set on exactly 3 inches. A finished set will be roughly 14-1/8" long but this is not the exact dimension. You will see what I'm describing as you work on them. We built a fixture so we could duplicate them. To do an individual set takes a little while but its worth it. The hardest thing is to find a way for them to stay set while you are translating pictures.
Susie
-
I just make these out of 1/8" x 3/8" flat stock, same as we make our chisels out of, so that the tips could be hardened. The most important dimension is making sure you are dead on center when you drill to install the axle. This is critical to center it.
I make my rough overal length of both legs in the neighborhood of 14-1/2" long.
Then drill the axle at 3-3/8 (leave a tiny bit more in case you over-do the pointing). Point these shorter legs along the outer surfaces, but leave the inside alone. Use a screw with a nut so it will hold while you complete the final step.
What you are after here, is to fix the axle with the short legs on exactly 3 inches. This opens the opposing longer legs. Point these longer legs at 4.854 inches while those shorter legs are set on exactly 3 inches. A finished set will be roughly 14-1/8" long but this is not the exact dimension. You will see what I'm describing as you work on them. We built a fixture so we could duplicate them. To do an individual set takes a little while but its worth it. The hardest thing is to find a way for them to stay set while you are translating pictures.
Susie
Would be a good candidate for "tutorial" or a "Shop made Tool"
What say you?
-
Ugghh. I aint that educated on the computer stuff. Wish I could do that, but its one step at a time! Easier to build guns than me handle a computer!
I do have a fella that may help me with that, but we will see what we can do. He has been pushing me to do the schools.
Susie
-
northwoodsdave,
My first thoughts when I made my initial post on this thread was to point out, maybe in some detail, the connection between Freemasonry and the GM. I decided that it wouldn't be a good idea, however, because for sure some would not be willing to approach this side of things with an open mind. Sometimes it's best to just remain silent.....especially if you don't know how many guns Plato made ::).
I think that you are probably correct in saying that some number of the early makers of Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles were Freemasons. Lorentz Kafka is the "Authority" in this area, and IIRC Lorentz told me that for sure Andreas Albrecht and George Shroyer were Freemasons and Jacob Dickert probably was also. It would be interesting to know, and to apply the GM to their creations! Carvings on stocks and designs engraved on various metal parts speak volumes by the way!
-
I have an opened mind. My mind is waiting for someone to show me any references to the golden means in any gunmaking books or publications from any period before 1900. If you look at some of the engravings in the books you will see gun patterns hanging on the walls at times and dividers but what does that mean.
Just because we all don't agree on somehing. There is no harm in discussing it. No body knows everything. Opinions are not proof. I have heard it stated that the [OLD MASTERS] especially in Europe
all laid out thier guns using the golden rule. I have never read or seen any evidence to prove that.
There is a ton of records from centuries past but no documented evidence that they did except circumstancial. The theory only fits a small percentage of guns exactly. Almost isn't good enough for me. It is not a matter of life or death. The problem with any controversial subject is it usually turns into an matter of egos. I don't care who is the winner. I just want to know the answer.
If you study a couple of hundred longrifles you can come to sort of an average set of retios. One thing I have noticed is this. With barrels that are 38" or longer the distance between the front trigger and the center of the buttplate is usually equal to the distance from the front trigger to the entre thimble. Or --like the golden means almost. Also on average, octagon to round pistol barrels are 40% octagon. That don't fit the golden rule.
everybody's opinion is of value as far as I'm concerned.
-
Plato said that man went through four distinct phases in developing his intellect. At first he was in a state of total "Ignorance", and didn't even know that there was anything to know! The second phase was that of "Opinion", and this could be broken down into two subcatagories, right opinion and wrong opinion. Next up the line in development was"Reason", and here a man would realize that it was necessary, through education and study, especially in mind-sharpening subjects such as mathematics...the old 1.6180339887 Golden Mean kinda thing...to progress to the next level ie "Intelligence"!
In reading the posts that have been made on the Golden Mean, I have SOMEHOW ::) formed the opinion-right or wrong-that some of us are hung up in the early "Opinion" phase while most have advanced to the "Reason" phase, and one or two, as was Patrick Hallam, have reached the "Intelligence" stage! Usually,IMO, those among us who attempt to educate the unknowing have achieved the "Intelligence" phase!
So, if someone doesn't agree with you, they simply have not reached "the intelligence phase"?
>:(
Freemasonry is also VASTLY different now than it was in 18th century America. There was a major change in American freemasonry in the early 19th century. Modern masonic ideas do not transpose to the 18th century masonic member.
-
Well, I find it very funny that some people are so quick to put down someone Else's idea's especially when they admit that they have no experience in it! Well, i can tell you that i was in the same boat, until i sat down with the books and went through them. I would flip the pages till i saw a beautiful gun. I would get the dividers out and check, 9 times out of 10 it was right on and the other 1 would be very, very close.
I am sure that the reason most people have never heard of this is because it wouldn't have been taught to every apprentice. Only the special gifted ones would be given the knowledge. maybe again that was why the dividers were used, it gets rid of the math for those who may not have been that educated. Just a side bar, these dividers are just like ones used by sailors to plot maps. I believe that it was used to hit the major reference lines then the master would refine it with the eye. I will post a picture of the dividers ASAP.
If these proportions were good enough for the almighty to use to make the universe i guess it is good enough to build an old gun by!
-
Ye old minutes
from ye old manuscript
of ye [OLD MASTERS]
conversing regarding
THE USE
of ye old
GOLDEN MEAN
So Wolfgang Haga looked over at J. P. Beck with a quizzical look, “So’d you ever use that Golden Mean thing on the gons you did?”
Beck looked back at Haga, “You bet! Used it on every gon I did! An You?”
“Naw,” said Haga. “I never heard about it til long after I was dead.” “Besides,” he continued, “my gons look a lot better than yo’rs so wouldn’t made no nohow anyways.”
Beck frowned at his ol buddy. “$#*! you say! Mine are gorgeous, they’re symmetrical, hellsbells, they’re ny on perfect!”
“Well, that’s a matter of opinion!” shot back Haga. “Mine are pure simplistic beauty!”
“And woulda looked a lot better ifn you’d a used the Golden Mean!” fired back Beck.
“Guys, guys, no need to argue the point,” Joe Long said. “I think,,,,,,”
“What the heck do you know Mr. Johnny come lately,” Haga croaked. “I been dead a least twice as long as you!”
“Geeeze,” Long moaned and rolled his eyes. “Beck was just sayin that ifn,,,”
“Ifn nothing!” Haga retorted. “Plenty a guys in the future payin plenty of money for my gons!”
“Not as much as mine!” Beck chuckled. “And least I signed my gons using the Golden Mean so them that bought them would know who made it.”
“Ah pooo! That Golden Mean thing ain’t worth a hoot, and I didn’t need to sign mine cause everyone already knows who made em!”
“Didn’t sign em cause ya didn’t know how!” Beck laughed.
“Didn’t sign um cause I didn’t need to!” Haga stammered.
“Well I signed mine, and I used the Golden Mean,” Joe long smiled, an I,,,,,”
“Phewww!” Haga interrupted. “Those dang things you made ain’t even gons, didn’t even use the right kinda locks, signed and Golden Mean or not! And besides, what kinda name is Joe, ain't no gon makers name, sounds like a plumbers name to me!”
“Well I beg to differ!” Long growned. “And least I didn’t blow my shop up with a keg a powder!
“Huuh, minor mishap, and Beg all ya want,” Haga dismissed. “You guys are tiring me out, so’s ya don’t mind, I’m gonna turn over in my grave and take a nap!”
So there you have it. Proof, right from the [OLD MASTERS]
John
-
I agree with Acer and Stophel. Most of this B.S. started from that JHAT article.
People selling dividers and such should put them in the classifieds or read only ads.
I believe the only one mentioning the sale of dividers is you, just now!!
-
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumb10.webshots.net%2Ft%2F71%2F71%2F1%2F73%2F60%2F2416173600089690090ouMppW_th.jpg&hash=fb141c07ee2dfea9cd68b715ae298cacbb18cc21) (http://family.webshots.com/photo/2416173600089690090ouMppW)
This is a picture of the dividers i have.
-
Okay.
If I built a gun to the exact demensions of an original 1780s gun, it would be a pain to shoot. Too short LOP. I want something that fits me, but is patterned after the style of an original.
I guess this is something that will be argued for quite awhile. Just becauswe every rifle doesn't match the golden mean exactly.
-
Ohioan
If you make exactly what you want you will always have exactly what you want!
Wow that was a little Yoda'ish! ;D
-
Here is a link to my web site page that shows both modern and 18th-century proportioning dividers.
http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Tools%20&%20Techniques/proportioningdividers.htm
As the web site mentions there were many different formal set of proportion used in period design work. Cabinetmaker and architects seem to have been the most dedicated users of them but on page 62 of Master French Gunsmith's Designs there is a plate by Jean Berain that clearly shows how he used rules of proportion to lay out a flint cock. That was Paris in 1659 and has zero to do with longrifles in 1789 but it lets some of you know that it wasn't just Thomas Chippendale who was an educated master.
Gary
-
I have a picture of a Rupp rifle, and original, and all of the carving is laid out with the volute set of chisels, and I suspect the proportions are close. It is worth remebering that a to be a "journeyman" was to have a set of tools that matched guild standards. I reckon that the journeyman gunsmith made his tools from patterns that employed the golden mean type proportioning without ever realizing the significance of the proportions. I read recently "you are fired" means a journeyman's tool were confiscated and burned for punishment. I also imagine that once a smith had a design perfected, he didn't stray far from that pattern for the rest of his career.
-
I have a set of proportional dividers. In the past they were used by many artists to up or down scale objects and read maps. They aren't used much anymore because of the computer. They can be set to any scale.
Most professional craftsman probably had them in years past simply because of the convenience. Another method of reducing or enlarging was using a grid.
I went to art school both armature and professional for 7 year and the Golden means was never mentioned.
I have a couple of friends who have masters degrees in fine art. I will ask them what they think of it.
-
Jerry- good point. I have a set myself, can be set to any proportion you want.
Gary Brumfield illustrates both a modern version and a set from an 18th century catalog. Both adjustable to what ever proportion you desire.
-
Wow, lotsa discussion since last night. Previous post identified the "Red Book".
Hallam's book on the golden mean used rifles from the KRA Red book as examples, so the two go together as a set (sort of).
-
Here is what Gary was talking about. Jean Berain pg 62 Master French Gunsmiths Design and an original set of french made proportional calipers. The points are steel set into german silver or packtonge.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv648%2FDaveB44%2FDSCN0186-1.jpg&hash=b19e900027aee2dd59ec4868c1729bd37b6cdd55)
-
There was an English Fowler posted a while back with a lot of wire inlay which I believe the mounts were made of packtong, so I thought it to be a softer material like silver. I don't know. does any body else?
I understand it to be more valuable than silver.
Oh these calipers are adjustable as well. Maybe to what ever looks best.
-
Ohioan
If you make exactly what you want you will always have exactly what you want!
Wow that was a little Yoda'ish! ;D
Nope, sounds more like something that Yogi Berra might have said.
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
Ohioan
If you make exactly what you want you will always have exactly what you want!
Wow that was a little Yoda'ish! ;D
Nope, sounds more like something that Yogi Berra might have said.
Ha HA HA, You are right. As a matter of fact the last time i came to a fork in the road i took it!
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
Here is something to back up and think about. Today, we are taking pieces, pictures, and etc., and (myself and some others) using dividers set to use the GM to make an analysis. But think about this. This is backwards.
This is after the fact. What happens to you when you lay out, then cut, then rasp, then scrape, sand and finish? The point may move. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. What I teach, is based on these same examples; and, our building experience and how I believe they did the process within the limitations of their times. By measuring a walk-in customer, using the barrels and locks they had on hand, then designing the firearm around the customers build. Its the method to achieve a really nice end; a tool, like a pencil.
Anyway, its neat to think about it by putting yourself in their frame of mind and think about how they achieved the beauty.
Susie
-
I'm trying to contribute with limited knowledge, so if I say something in err, tell me.
Why were barrels so many different lengths? Most were somewhere around 45in +/- 4in. I'm sure part of the reason is customer needs/ wants.
Did the varius lengths measure up to the golden mean?
-
Great question! Part of it is the time period, but the lengths had something to do with the forger of the barrel at the time of make. Depending on the period of time, like the transitional period being a time changing from the short Jeager hunting rifle barrel to evolving into the longer barrel that improved the sight plane and ultimately increased accuracy. But I think you are asking something here a little different. Most of the time it was probably the barrel maker, fine tuned by the gunmaker to the finished piece. Some rifle barrels do work out to GM dimensions within a rifle, most don't in regards to barrel length. Most everyone here assumed my answers meant that a whole gun was completely done to GM. I don't think that was always so. I think they used it to make parts of it more aesthetically pleasing; not necessarily 100%. But there are many that are, and they are something to look at. I have some original pistol barrels that are 100% GM, meaning the swamped waist lays out exact, or the octagon ends in a specific spot, but I brought this up because they were provided breeched to the makers and I don't know if that was a practice common to barrel makers here too. But you could see that would leave the muzzle length a question.
Susie
-
I think Suzie is right on the mark with this post. I would think that the decoration would be very close to the GM as that is what appears in nature and naturally looks best to people. Just a little speculation here but I would bet that some of the masters also looked at the knowledge of the GM as almost "spiritual" because of all the natural occurances of it in nature. Remember the Nautilus spiral, the layout of the sunflower's rows of seeds, even the positioning of eyes nose and mouth on a human face. If a gunsmith just built a gun to suit what fit the customer it would seem reasonable that some of the dimensions would fall close to the GM just because the GM ratio pops up so frequently in nature. Also consider that we use so many approximations based on our physical characteristics to determine things like length of trigger pull;eg, distance from bend of elbow to bend of 1st knuckle is about the right LOP. In my case that would be 14.5 inches. I'm sure that the spiritual aspect would be particularly stong if the gunsmith was a Mason as it appears some were.
-
That Jean Berain cock doesn't look right to me. it's too fat on the bottom. If that fits the goldem mean
leave me out.
-
Jerry, I think you're right about that. The numbers seem like they were applied to a section on another part of the drawing, which is not visible in the post. I think it's too fat too. Suzie will let us know.
-
You guys are funny.
The cock is perfect for the lock it is intended for, circa 1680. The purpose of the illustration is so should a craftsman wish to recreate the pattern with out having the pattern book he could do it with the dividers. We take for granted our being able to go to the computer and print off what ever we want or modify it with a drawing program. Pattern books were guarded jealously and only the select few had access. If you teach some one how to fish he can feed him self. The dividers were a means to reproduce correctly those details that they thought were important. Sure its fat compaired to what we are used to seeing but you have to remember they valued having plump beauties at this time. You are not going to see any size two nudes in any of their art work. I like this time period for its generous proportions and busty models. I hope to give Tom a run for his money with my Jager project but I am having a problem getting a good model. But I digress.
Obviously it is not to everyones taste but the plate clearly shows how the GM was used by one of the worlds best gunmakers.
Like it or not its a fact. Use calipers or not but those who feel that its a kick to see how the GM is found in so many of the golden age rifles we all find attractive, have an inside track when building them. I know that it was not applied exclusively but there is no doubt that it was used in my estimation by the better smiths for portions of their work.
To say that the American Longrifle smiths didn't use the GM wether by caliper or calculation is just silly. They may not have named it as we call it today but statistically the percentages of rifles with some of their details that fit perfectly the GM answers the question with out a doubt in my mind.
Now I just need to find a generous proportioned Model for my Jaeger cheek plate.
I think size 12 and up to 16 should do.
-
Dave, are you trying to get someone to volunteer their wife? Mine's to skinny for your tastes, sorry.
I don't think Suzy will ever be able to change Jerry's mind, short of finding the diary of j.p beck saying "we all use the golden mean."
I'm going to try and find a copy of that book, just so I can add one more tool to my mental toolbox. I don't think it can hurt. Heck, it might even make me a better gunmaker.
I wonder, has anyone ever applied the golden mean to antique powder horns?
-
overheard in a small an 18th century gunshop in (pick one - Pennsylvania, Virginia, N.C.)...
"Yaaa, I've seen a set of those dividers before, but I don't need 'em. I know what looks good on a gun and what doesn't."
-
That Jean Berain cock doesn't look right to me. it's too fat on the bottom. If that fits the goldem mean
leave me out.
Actually, it doesn't float my boat either, but its been a long time since I measured that drawing. If I remember right, it was layed out to proportion but not necessarily Golden Mean. Notice on dividers that there is a multitude of settings. And also, if I remember right, I think this plate was drawn around 1650 or so, and was a French designer of his idea of the new flint cock. That early stuff was one step past ugly ...oops...sorry.... but you ought to see the English locks at that same moment of time ....puke....oops sorry.... again! Actually this plate represents approximately the first attempts at their new round faced flint designs!
Susie
-
People have used dividers probably before recorded history. The simple fact that there are a set of dividers in the drawing doesn't mean he used the Golden means theory. From what I can observe ,the drawing does not illustrate the so called Golden means proportion. I have proportional dividers but I don't use the so called golden means, proportion. They are usually used by most craftsmen and artists to simply enlarge or reduce a drawing or other object or in map reading. The hammer is still ugly. the top jaw is too short also.
PS --Jean Berain wasn't a gun maker. He was an artist and designer. Many of his designs were never actually used in the making of real firearms , furniture or anything other than art. The gun makers design book was just that [ a design book. Some of the designs were actually used but lots of them never were. At least there is no evidence to prove that they were. Some of them are totally impractical fantasies.
I personally think most of the colonial gunsmiths just used patterns for cutting out stocks. Most of us guys have patterns hanging around the shop. You can see them hanging on the walls in the engravings of old gunshops.
-
I wonder, has anyone ever applied the golden mean to antique powder horns?
Zach,
In an article for "The Book Of Buckskinning", volume II, Don Wright wrote about constructing powder horns. I don't remember if he actually mentioned the golden mean, but I believe he does talk about a 3:5 ratio between the body of the horn and the throat/spout part of the horn that results in pleasing architecture on powder horns.
However, if you look at any of the powder horn reference books it is easy to see that a lot of the horns pictured don't even come close to having been made with consideration for the golden mean ratio.
I don't believe I have ever seen another reference to the golden mean being used to construct powder horns. At least not in a primary source document. I might believe that the golden mean ratio could be applied to the building of powder horns because the ratio would only be applied once between the length of the body and the length of the throat/spout.
Randy Hedden
-
Randy, that was what I was thinking about. It just kind of popped into my head when I saw my horn hanging on the wall.
the body looked to be about 3/5 of the length of the horn.
-
Dixon's powder horn judges expect Golden mean proportions.
This Golden Mean thing seems to be a hot button topic. I think it's interesting and would like to learn how to apply it and give it a try. But it is confusing to me because there seems to always be some way to make a good longrifle fit by mixing around what is a proportion of what.
Example- some exceptional longrifles made by acknowledged "masters" are short-wristed (Oerter for example) and some are long-wristed (Bucks County rifles, Antes, some Lehigh guns). Look at where the rear of the guard terminates in relation to the comb. This is very fundamental. Some adherents of the Golden Mean will find a way to make long and short-wristed rifles both fit the Golden Mean principles. That really does not help much for the person trying to figure out, "How long should the comb be in relation to the length of the buttstock?"
-
It's funny, this thread has really got me looking for the "Golden Ratio" in everyday objects, and it's interesting the things that are at least close to the golden ratio. If if it was not designed that way on purpose.
-
Dixon's powder horn judges expect Golden mean proportions.
Rich,
Along with some of the other judging criteria used at Dixons, I wonder how they arrived at using the golden mean when judging powder horns. Did they find some primary source document that stated that the golden mean proportion was used when constructing powder horns or is this another one of those judging criteria, like the depth of the patch box cavity, that they just pulled out of the air and applied?
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
The critique of the horn I submitted 2 years ago stated the neck or spout end should be about 2/5 of the total length. The horn I submitted started that way then the plug end cracked a little when I inserted the plug. So I had to trim off 3/4 of an inch at the base plug end, and that made the neck end closer to half the length of the horn than I wanted. Maybe 45%.
I'm not trying to start another Dixon's judging threads, but it does point out that at least some judges probably use Golden Mean "eyes" even on horns. Bags and knives and hawks may be next. It was a good, solid, strong, clean horn; it was nontypical of early horns (black striping lengthwise from the base to solid black at the tip) and a very fine gunmaker uses it now. Course I had to give it to him for free to get him to use it. :-[
-
Do you have any idea how many cows the have to cull out to get one that will grow golden mean horns!!! ;D
-
I read in National Geographic that a reciept for one of D. Boone's guns specified a barrel long enought he could blow down the barrel without looking down. They used this to estimate his height.
-
Jerry, you are correct that Jean Berain didnt make guns but he decorated them. He was an engraver as well as a painter. His father was a master gunsmith. The layout of the cock infact does use the golden mean for portions of the layout. Not all of it only portions. I think the consensus is that it is good to know it and how to apply it but not necessary to use it for every thing only portions where it helps best.
-
Do you have any idea how many cows the have to cull out to get one that will grow golden mean horns!!! ;D
I don't know about Golden Mean horns but we had some cows with mean horns. Least they felt that way when they "hooked" ya.
-
Saying that part of an object fits the golden means is a real desperate stretch in my opinion.
Almost , part of, real close is like trying to screw a metric nut on to a standard American fine bolt. It just doesn't fit. It's like the parachute that almsot opened.
-
Example- some exceptional longrifles made by acknowledged "masters" are short-wristed (Oerter for example) and some are long-wristed (Bucks County rifles, Antes, some Lehigh guns). Look at where the rear of the guard terminates in relation to the comb. This is very fundamental. Some adherents of the Golden Mean will find a way to make long and short-wristed rifles both fit the Golden Mean principles. That really does not help much for the person trying to figure out, "How long should the comb be in relation to the length of the buttstock?"
Good catch Rich. You are at least looking for it! For the most part, I have found that once the maker knew the trigger pull of the customer he was building for, he then must have marked that length out on the blank. Once he had that, the nose of the comb falls at Mean proportion, or 3 to 4.854 from that pull spot to the end of the barrel. At least that where it usually is on the Lehigh and Bucks county rifles I have explored. If its a little off, I think that happens in the finishing. I have been doing this experimenting with my fiindings and the guns lay out very nicely on a blank.
Susie
-
Rich.
Don't you know? It's usually a little off or almost exact or close but sometimes, and once in a while it fits part of it except for the other part. Then occasionally it fits real close. Almost exactly.
-
Once he had that, the nose of the comb falls at Mean proportion, or 3 to 4.854 from that pull spot to the end of the barrel.
So, explain a Bedford.
-
An artist no matter the medium be it wood, metal, paint, ink, stone,etc...knows the look that makes the piece flow and it's parts and pieces work together. The proper proportions are in their mind and they have the ability to transfer them into a piece of art that is pleasing to the eye. The GM is like instinct shooting, some people need a front and rear sight to get things lined up and hit the target. Others don't need or use sights at all and not only hit the target but the bullseye every time.
Tim C
-
Ask those gunbuilders that are considered to be tops in the field if they consciously apply golden mean. Think you'll have your answer there. Not trying to offend anyone, but to me it seems like something those less experienced are fascinated with and sometimes drawn to.
-
Excellent post Tim! I agree.
I know lots of you think I'm too "in" to this GM thing. Like I keep saying, its art in the craft and was a tool to use to make it better. I don't think its in all guns because all makers weren't taught the use of it. But I do think, as I said very early in this thread, that European trained makers (and those who came here) did use it as an aid and a tool for layout. And I also think it became a lost art. I think I have a good eye, but I use it as a tool to make my guns even better. And, I know for a fact that Mark Silver, Jim Chambers and a whole host of other masters use it too. So, I figure to be in good company.
Susie
-
Rich.
Don't you know? It's usually a little off or almost exact or close but sometimes, and once in a while it fits part of it except for the other part. Then occasionally it fits real close. Almost exactly.
;D
You know, I just looked at some of my old gun drawings and measured some things like where I put the top screw in the buttplate tang, the length of this, the length of that and such and you know, some of the things ended up being "close" to the celebrated 3:5 ratio! Wow! I MUST have used 3:5 dividers, and was purposely building to the "golden mean" right? Of course not. I have NEVER measured anything out on my guns trying to get the magic ratio. It just sometimes comes out that way because that often is the most attractive way to do it.
Same thing with makers 200+ years ago. "They got things really close to 3:5 a lot of times, they MUST have used the golden mean...right?", No, probably they got things close to 3:5 because they had a good eye! THE WHOLE POINT of this ratio is that this division is what is considered to be naturally most pleasing to the eye. Imagine that! They could tell what looked good! ANYONE with any kind of artistic ablity is going to be able to draw something out reasonably close to a 3:5 ratio, whether they are trying or not.
The ratio is found in the art, art is not found in the ratio.
:)
-
There are some people, whether it is in the sphere of gunbuilding or in unrelated areas of design, who inherently understand form and proportion. There are others who spend a lifetime developing (or trying to develop) those skills.
There are others who think that a simple mathematical formula is all that's needed.
One can "reproduce" the Mona Lisa with paint by numbers - but it's not gonna look the same.
-
I have a set of GM dividers but I usually use them as an afterthought if at all. I think if you have the 'gift' your eye will tell you what is right. Can your eyes be trained to see the GM? Is it something that develops with experience? Just a thought.
Michael
-
Does the golden mean represent the only correct proportion? If the name golden mean is an indication it is an average proportion and not an exact proportion.
-
Mathematically the GM was developed by measuring proportions of various objects and body parts that looked to be an ideal proportion. Kind of like De Vinchis development of perspective where all lines go to a point on a horizon. Naturally gifted artists, like a cousin of mine, could draw what they saw, literally and had no mathematical training or artistic training. When you talk of proportion you are also talking about drawing animals, people, etc that have heads that look proportional to their bodies, legs of proper length and so forth. The GM fits some of these applications and does not others. Some use a compass to draw circles. Mechanical layouts utilize these mathematical crutches and permit non artistic people like me to lay out a object. Naturally gifted people often have an ability to come very close without the layout. It was said that a Japanese artist practiced drawing circles until he could freehand one wihtin a few hundreths of an inch. I use a compass.
DP
-
Once he had that, the nose of the comb falls at Mean proportion, or 3 to 4.854 from that pull spot to the end of the barrel.
So, explain a Bedford.
Easy! Not all rifles were made to conform to the GM.
Maybe none of them were.
I see the GM as being a tool, not a hard and fast rule.
As mentioned several times already, artistically inclined people seem to just be born with pleasing perspective. Other people just don’t have it. For those that don’t have it, the GM can help with the initial pleasing arrangement of rifle stock parts, drawing a design, or taking a picture.
I don’t take it to mean that the main subject of a picture Must be at an exact position, just close to that position, then using your own artistic eye for the final placement.
Same as with a rifle, it doesn’t have to be followed exactly and religiously, but will simple give you a good starting place that your own individual idea of perfection can improve upon.
So to say a Bedford might or might not adhere to the GM is meaningless, as obviously not all rifles do. Obviously the Bedford makers thought their guns looked fine just as they made them.
Think of the GM as a tool, and not an absolute.
John
-
Naturally gifted people often have an ability to come very close without the layout. It was said that a Japanese artist practiced drawing circles until he could freehand one wihtin a few hundreths of an inch. I use a compass.
DP
Ms. Betty Butterface, My HS Geometry teacher could draw nearly perfect freehand circles on the chalkboard time & time again. When asked how she did it, she said "it's simple: keep a constant radius!"
-
With over 1600 views and more than 100 replies it looks like at least the GM gets the Gold for the most viewed and replied to post on the new board. :)
Tim C.
-
With over 1600 views and more than 100 replies it looks like at least the GM gets the Gold for the most viewed and replied to post on the new board. :)
Tim C.
Yeah, Tim,
Its time for someone to give the death blow to this already beaten to death horse.
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
Poor Horatio...
-
If you can't stand it, stop reading.
Otherwise, have a good time. This is the hottest post for a loooong time. Always is.
-
There are other more modern firearms that have universal, almost mystical appeal to most people. The Winchester Model 94 and Der Mauser Karabiner 98k come to mind immediately. I wonder if anyone knowledgable of making GM measurements has ever measured these pieces against the principles of the GM? Susie? Anyone?
-
I think this is healthy discussion whether you believe anyone used it or not. I made the below dividers just to check how often it works out. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't but it is fun to look. Personally I trust my eye more than math or dividers.
Ken
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi7.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy298%2FPackdog1%2FGeneral%2FGoldenMean3.jpg&hash=0e15c1dc72ee2f4c87d8bb03fe748b24259b37a5)
-
That blacksmith guy did a nice job with the tin snips on that there patchbox.
Nice dividers. Did you design them? Do the 3 points always fall on a line? I'd like to try to make a set for fun. What's the range (longest extension)?
-
rich,
I bet Susie could help you with a set of plans for the dividers. She offered to help me build a set, but I'm not a rifle builder...I tangle up crowbars and break anvils!
-
Rich,
I ran across the plans on the internet and like you thought I would make a set up. They are sort of a novelty / curio item to me.
Here's the weblink. They are about 1/2 down the page. You could make them any size you want.
http://goldennumber.net/goldgrid.htm (http://goldennumber.net/goldgrid.htm)
-
Ken,
I like those you have there. No fuss no muss, no having to flip end for end and if your friction screw is loose you get those measurments that Jerry gets.... always just alittle off....sometimes. ;D
Are they made from brass or is it the light that makes it look like it?
-
Dave, they are made from brass. I have seen of those flip and use the opposite side dividers. I'm sure they work well and I may make some one day. I think a couple of vendors sell them much cheaper than the time to make them. I just thought these were neat.
They are not a precision measuring instrument and yes, they are a little off. ;D but they are something within the means of just about any of the old gunsmiths.
Cheers,
Ken
-
When I went back to the KRA meeting one of the tables had a collection of tools that had come from a family who GGranddaddy was a gunsmith and they were selling the whole shooting match for a lump sum of $5000. It was fun digging through the box. You wonder when they passed on and every thing was boxed up for the inventory what was just thrown into the box labled "mic. gunsmithing tools". My favorite was the hack saw just like Herscle uses in the building a Kentucky rifle video. Hand forged with a scrolled rear blade retainer.
Thanks again for the link to the site I will have to whip one of those up for the bench.
-
Thanks, Ken, maybe I'll make some using old hacksaw blades. One of the rivet holes is already there.
-
What happens to the proportions when you put the dividers on the lower left corner of the PB cover? It don't proportion no more. my point being is that by positioning the calipers around, you can get them to align somewhere, and then you can announce that the gun was made using the Golden Mean.
Ken, I do think that is the best design so far I've seen for proportioning calipers. They are direct, you don't need to keep turning them over to check your measurements.
-
Of course it won’t fit everywhere no matter where you put it.
The only thing I can think of where it would fit anyplace, would be a straight line, and the diameter of a circle.
And hey, that’s a neat ol gun you chose to illustrate Ken!
Obviously made by someone without a lot of artistic skill, yet that didn’t slow him down and he tried to incorporate all the bells and whistles of finer rifles! Beaver tails on the lock/side plate areas, wrist carving, carved behind the cheek piece, etc.
Evidently it originally it had a wood box cover before the backwoods one on it now.
And for sure this ol boy had never ever heard of the GM, cause if you put the point of the divider on the center end of the PB door, it’ll be at least a good solid 1/16” outta whack! ;D
John
-
JMHO, I think the Golden Mean is built into the artists eye. A good artist sees the flow and balance of things.I think it applies to all art forms.( just a laymans point of view.)
-
Neat topic I Googled it and found alot about it Noah's ark was built on that principle,the ark of the covenant is the same, basically a miniature Noah's ark so it's been around awhile. The set of books that handle that is "Historical arms making technology"