AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Jim Kibler on March 21, 2014, 06:11:17 PM
-
This subject was touched on a bit in another thread. I just thought it might be fun to discuss and get the thoughts of others on this subject. There's certainly a wide range of approaches that that fall within either of the extremes. Everybody seems to find what they enjoy most and what type of work makes them happiest. So what are some thoughts on this subject?
-
Jim, Should be a good topic. Creativity for myself is applying artictic elements that are appropriate for 18/19th century longrifles without directly copying designs from extant examples.
So it's working in defined guidelines, while trying to do something a bit different than what we have remaining as examples. An example would be the 2 signed Christian Oerter highly wire inlayed rifles, they're pretty similiar but one more highly decorated that the other, if we found a third one what would it look like ? Can I design it and have it be recognized as a realistic ? Another example would be Moravian rifles, we have just a few examples but what did the 98% of the other rifles look like, can I design and build a believable example ?
-
I've wondered about that too, I am personally not a subscriber to just reproducing certain schools, periods, etc. Am currently building a "back woods gun", light weight , slim and .55 cal. (30 balls to the pound). Have also decided to make my own lock based on a Whatley, fairly large,probably late 17th century. Probably won't pass muster here---But, it will be all mine the way I want it. Of course I am just a crazy old man from the back woods. ;D :D ???
-
That's a subject I constantly struggle with. I tend to use historical examples for inspiration without making a copy of an existing gun. A lot of times there is a question in my mind on whether I have produced something that could have come out of such and such a shop, or have I just created a mish mash of stolen details? There is a fine line there, but just where does it occur? Is a fantasy rifle something that is totally thought up by the builder, or is it something similar to existing works and possibly could have come from say, the Dickert shop? There are degrees of that also. A builder can easily produce a piece that may not be totally historically correct, but does that mean that it is wrong; and just who makes that decision?
Another area I see in historical correctness is the level of craftsmanship. This is not a criticism of those who are capable of producing a "Super Gun" and doesn't really affect me so much because I don't have the patience/ability to produce one of that level, so I settle for the "workmanlike manner", which is maybe a cop out for not taking the extra time and effort to really produce a top tier rifle, but I can take solice in the fact that a lot of the old guns were nowhere near some of the stuff produced today. Granted that some carving has not survived 200 years or so in unblemished condition, so it is difficult to tell, but there are still some tool marks that are discernable even today, and engraving on a lot of existing guns is something that would be unacceptable in today's world. Where do you draw that line ? I don't know. I am satisfied that what I build will give the user the experience of an 18th century gun, which is really my goal to begin with.
Personally, I have always liked the Beck rifle that you recently created, with the exception of that bent trigger guard. I have often wondered on seeing that piece if the double triggers were a backfit and the original guard were modified to fit. I would not use that little detail on anything I ever produced because it just seems so incongruous with the rest of the rifle. I do realize that it is a documented copy and that is why it is like that, but that raises the question that if you intend to build a copy, do you copy the mistakes also (if that could really be called a mistake)? This also raises the point that I have never seen a copy that when placed alongside the original, that something somewhere was just not quite the same. It may be very subtle, such as the countour of the lock plate or a slightly different size of a screw, but the difference is there.
I suppose it could be argued that none of the stuff we build today is really historical because we use machined steel barrels, cast steel locks and investment cast furniture, all while working under electric light and air conditioning.
All this has made my head hurt.....I'm going back out to my shop.
-
I think that the term “Historically Correct” while being a valid subject of discussion and a subject that I enjoy,it’s a term that’s almost impossible to define.It means so many different things to different people that no definition can be settled on particularly on the internet.
That being said I personally find that guns that closely follow particular schools / originals to be more pleasing to my eye.That’s just a personal preference.While this may stifle creativity to some degree,there are very few builders myself included who have the necessary vocabulary (as Wallace would say)to pull off a pleasing gun that strays too far from the historical examples.The reason “New School” work such as John Bivens and some of the latest work by Jim Kibler is so appealing (not just because of their skill at execution) is that it had a strong foundation in historical work.They learned to crawl before they walked if you will.I think too many builders try to get too far outside the historical “box” under the guise of being “creative” too soon.
That’s just my 2 cents!!!
Mitch Yates
-
I like the idea of attaining a certain degree of skill or mastery before taking off into the realm of creativity, but also believe people should build what they want to build. It's the best way to be invested in the project. Also, not everyone is equally gifted and trained, either technically or artistically. Many people think that mastery should be easy, but that rarely is the case in any field of endeavor. In music, there are musicians who can play, and improvisers, and songwriters, but not everyone is going to be notable.
-
I am in the middle of a build(Lancaster) where I used the profile of one builder, the carving of another and patchbox and engraving of yet another of the Lancaster school. Would that be considered correct? I dont care anyway because the gun will be mine and thats what I wanted when I built it. Would this approch be considered creative or not?
-
Interesting discussion! Keep it coming. As part of the ignorant unwashed, I always benefit from the ideas expressed by the knowledgable.
-
I believe John Bivins said it all very well in his descriptions of the 4 basic categories.
#1 is Documentary recreation. These are guns made exactly as the old ones were “mistakes and all”. These are the ones that sell to the most dedicated of the reinactors
#2 is interpretive recreation. .These guns are made in the style of an old school or even a single maker, but mix details from one gun to another. An example might be to look at 4 different JP Beck guns and make a gun that has carving from one with a patch box from another and so on. A student of Beck’s work would see the new rifle as a “Beck style rifle” but not a copy of a specific Beck rifle. The area of building opens up quite a lot when we start talking about areas (Like Lancaster) instead of makers (like Beck or berry or any other one you may like)
#3 is New School. These are guns made in the style of the guns made long ago, but in the art form that the modern builder likes. In other words this would be the rifle a builder would make if he were to be transported back in time and have to compete for his place in the market in 1790 or 1800. He would not copy anyone but would try to make guns that other smiths of the era. would want to copy.
New School is the category that proves the real Golden Age of the American Longrifle is now, not 200 years ago.
#4 is Modern. This category includes such things as plastic, inlines, smokeless powder and so on.
I build guns from categories #1 #2 and #3.
I build what my customers want as long as they don’t go into #4
-
Possibly to "boil this down" ...if a LR is built that at FIRST GLANCE is attributed to whatever "school" it's supposed to emulate, even though it incorporates features from different original builders of this same school, wouldn't this LR be considerd somewhat w/in this "school"? A LR built this way could have the description of "generic", but still be recognized as simulating the intended "school"?
I don't have any exposure to originals, not the knowledge and not the artistic ability to duplicate an original in the fullest sense....so, I build LRs described in the first paragraph. That's the best I can do....and when one of my LRs is completed and advertised for sale as a certain "school", the many customers so far have never questioned this. ...not proof positive I'm doing it right, but satisfies me.
I also can't "invent" features that have the "feeling" of a particular school, but don't have any precedence in any originals. That requires a very "artistic mindset" to pull off . So...what to do? Just do what I've been doing all along as described in the first paragraph......Fred
-
I like to study the firearms from a certain culture, from a certain window in time before I build one. It's like immersing oneself in the language before speaking it. So I take artistic license, but it's within the realm of possibilities of the culture and era. I like to hunt out historic examples of stock styles, of barrel length, carving and engraving, put all of these in a folder in my mind, and then draw off this memory bank during the creative process.
So I would say that for me, basing my work on historical example is on equal footing with the creative.
To create makes me happy.
I'm very glad you asked the question, Jim. It causes us to pause and take our bearings once in a while. I find that why I do things changes over time. It's good to take stock of yourself every so often.
-
Hello I'm new to the forum and to building rifles, I'm currently working on a rifle that in my opinion would be considered American colonial prior golden age. My thoughts are that the builders of the time were in business, thus they were building for customers. They may have put their own personal "style" per say in the rifle, however could it be that costumers who commissioned them to build rifles had some say. I don't think it is hard to believe that a costumer could have seen a rifle from Virginia/Caralinas or even new England and requested certain details put on their rifle say from Lancaster. through out history artists always looked to the past for inspiration to create something new. There was a building back home in Indiana down town that had Greek pillars, renaissance art and the building represented medieval architecture.
Just my 2c
-
I don't think it is hard to believe that a costumer could have seen a rifle from Virginia/Caralinas or even new England and requested certain details put on their rifle say from Lancaster. through out history artists always looked to the past for inspiration to create something new.
First welcome to ALR, hope you enjoy your stay.
I have always thought that when men, especially militia men were marched into strange (to them) areas that they saw things that were not commonly used in their own areas. I feel sure that many of them would have tried some of these things on their own after the campaign/war was over. I suspect this applied to their weapons and probably their dress as well. Wallace Gusler once told me that when the men from the "southern colonies" marched to Boston during the Rev War the locals there had not seen the hunting coats/frocks that the southern men were wearing. I believe he also mentioned they had not seen the longrifles that they were carrying. Surely some of them were anxious to try some of the different ideas after they got back home. (bet you never thought you would see PA men described as "southern") ;D
Dennis
-
Starting in 1725 if everybody was historically correct all the guns would look alike to this day. Almost every gun maker was a contemporary in his day. However I do like the guns of all eras. whatever. But I sort of dislike exact copies. I can understand why somebody would want one but outside of money I can't understand why anybody would want to build one. Some people build one just to try out their talents. that's good I guess. You will learn by doing so. I know guys that have built over 200 guns and the last one looks just like the first one. I couldn't stand the boredom of that. I get bored just building a set of pistols or engraving 2 locks the same.
-
Sort of a fork in the road there. Maybe we're talking about the creativity of the original gunsmiths. Some were; some stuck to a model for the most part. Architecture seems to be a strong signature although it varied with the times as rifles became slimmer in the later Golden Age. Regarding the idea that a gunsmith would make whatever a customer wanted, I've always felt that if a customer wanted something like a rifle that Bill built, he'd be best off going to Bill for that, not Jack. Especially true if there was plenty of business at hand. For a later example, the Hawken brothers built plains rifles and local rifles of smaller caliber at less cost, but one can see the architectural similarities. Would someone have success going to the Hawken shop and asking for a perch belly rifle?
-
Regarding the idea that a gunsmith would make whatever a customer wanted, I've always felt that if a customer wanted something like a rifle that Bill built, he'd be best off going to Bill for that, not Jack.
Unless the customer wanted something like he saw in another area of the country. Then he would need to explain to Bill or Jack what he wanted.
Dennis
-
My brother and me have built about six or seven rifles over the years from book pictures or photos from outside the glass case in museums. They are not completely correct, but close. I have done one bench build and it was correct. No store bought parts went into the building of any of these rifles. All had wrought iron barrels and hand made locks and the rest if the hardware wrought iron or brass. If you are locking to build a replica and buy store bought parts you will have to alter them somewhat and then whey might not work to your satisfaction . Dennis: loved your post. BTW have you seen Jim Webb lately.
-
Historically correct vs creativity... Take the guns you build Jim K, or at least the ones I have seen pictures of - are they historically correct? Yes and no, they are of a type, the Golden Age PA long rifle, yes, they are very evocative of that period, their architecture is spot on for the era as are their furniture. They are well crafted, very well. In fact one might say they are better rendered than most originals that we know of today. Where you shine is in your creativity in interpreting that era and showing your individuality in through your decorating/carving which while "within the school" are pushed and at the same time constrained in a taunt and recognizable Jim Kibler style. Similar words would describe a lot of the experienced contemporary builders today.
Personally I wouldn't, actually I couldn't, see building exact replicas of these muzzleloaders, I would bore of such work quickly. I want, no, need, some creative leeway although I try and base work on the era and style of the period it represents. I did quite a bit of research on the Lancaster and settled on Dickert as my model. I am now involved in a Tennessee style and research has lead me to the Bean family and their sparse rendering of the long rifle. But Willy Higgins is pulling me toward a more artistic mode, I will land somewhere in between no doubt. It will resemble a Tennessee mountain rifle, it will not be one.
The study of history reveals the era and the style, our creativity pushes us to do.
dp
-
As evidenced by Willy Higgins, southern gun makers were a creative group. If you are building southern guns, you have a lot more latitude in what you do.
-
I build what I like, in the fashion of the specific school but never an exact copy of any specific builder or rifle. The goal is to build a rifle that would be acceptable to the time period not an exact bench copy of anyone else's work.
I believe that you should build what pleases you as the fun in black powder shooting/building is in the journey not just the destination.
-
Haven't done enough rifles yet to say one way or the other but tried building one "true to the plan original" and didn't like how restricted I was. I had to keep stopping myself from making a little change here or there that I thought would look better, work better etc.
Current build fit's nicely into the definition posted on "interpretive recreation". It's a collage of seven different rifles from the same builder spread over 30'ish year period - picking what I like best from each and then throwing it all into the blender to see what comes out when done.
Some would say if you go for a screw for screw copy it's a fake or a forgery.
Others would say if you don't it's a fantasy gun.
I leave such arguments to those who feel some need to take a stand either way and debate/defend their position.
I just want a rifle that somewhat resembles the work of the gun maker who has caught my eye and if in someones opinion it's not 100% HC/PC because I decide to use German Silver on a pre-1830 piece or it's a "fake" or whatever, that's ok, for I probably would not invite you to shoot it anyhow if those things were important to you and you would likely decline the offer if I did.
-
I like to incorporate my own flare and artistry (what little of it I possess) while being restrained reined in within the historical/geographical/cultural, etc.
This requires a bit of self study as opposed to someone else's opinions, sometimes cloaked as facts.
On other boards especially I often see the "do it my own way" argument from those who have little control over the outcome of their project, whether it be lack of technical ability or research.
I am not saying this is all cases as I know quite a few who work well outside the box very effectively.
And to Mr. Kibler who started this thread......your depth of knowledge of the historical and period correctness side of things allows you to create some of the most correct and believable pieces out there. That same foundation is also what allow you to supercede others in effectively going off the path when you so choose.
-
Personally, I find no joy in copying someone else's work whether it be an original builder or a contemporary builder. I try and keep to a particular architectural school, such as Lancaster, Lehigh, or Bucks Co, as an example, and I try and use furniture that would have been used in that particular school, but from there I like to try and design the artistic features to please me, again trying to stay within the realm of what would look appropriate to that particular school. I have yet to build a rifle specifically for someone else. I have no one to please but myself, therefore I have a lot of artistic leeway. I'm of the opinion that just because an example of a particular style or type of rifle does not exist today, that does not mean that it was never built. To me It simply means that it could have been built and simply never survived. Of the tens of thousands of original Longrifles that were built, only a fraction have survived. Who's to say what's appropriate and what's not? I guess, according to John Bivins anyway, the rifles I build would be considered New School. I build what makes me happy and I build for the fun of building, not to adhere to someone else's preconceived notion as to what is right or wrong. I'm one of those builders who likes to think outside the box, and I make no excuses for it! I think Oldarcher said it best when he said that the fun of Blackpowder shooting/building is in the journey, and not just the destination.
-
What would Jim Kibler think about this question?
-
Thank you so much for the opportunity to "hear" your voices. I am amazed by the leadership here that has so inspired me to be a better builder. As a beginner, your insights mean a lot to me.
If I may make a comment; it appears to me that in life there are many worthwhile endeavors that are difficult to achieve. For me and I would assume for most of you, building long rifles is one of them. Having the " skeleton" of structure and "schools" seems essential to success in any higher craft or art be it motorcycle building or painting. You may be able to pull off a custom cool looking work occasionally, but consistently keeping the framework intact seems to make the difference in longevity of the art form. That being said I find it is often the personal creativity that carries it further and sets it apart as a desired accomplishment; as we see in the RCA books and certainly in this forum from contemporary builders. I personally am greatly enjoying this journey!
-
I'm off of the "creative" line....I wandered over there for a rifle or two, and found that while building was fun....I wasn't satisfied with the rifles entire architecture. So, I have gone back to staying in a school or discipline. Now once I can look at a finished rifle and say I'm satisfied, then I will be able to add small personal distinctions....like Mr.Buchele's rifles.
And, life is too short to keep jumping around, but I DO enjoy an occasional southern Mtn rifle ;D
SOMEday, I will build a "keeper" iron mounted kentucky, mine......
All this is fun......that's why I do it! Otherwise, it would be WORK......
-
I haven't started a gun yet, I'm still at the stage of deciding what to build. I originally thought I had decided, but since I started coming here... I have some ideas about what I like, and I fully intend to produce a stock that will fit me. Beyond that I feel quite strongly that if I am to make myself a modern "bygone" its important to base it within a fairly narrow time period. I'm currently thinking 20 years at the outside, less If I can manage it. If I use components separated by a hundred years too many people will be unable to see my work behind the wrongness and eventually it will look wrong to me too. I think I can afford to allow myself a little more leeway with geographical variation. The original smiths lived in a time when people, goods and ideas were on the move. I'm sure that they were creative men whose imaginations would be fed by novelty, and something of that would appear in their work. I'll be looking to make a fairly early, fairly plain gun that will suggest a date and maybe a place - and then I'm going to pretend that I'm snowed in for three months and pass the time by carving on it. I am in truth a compulsive fiddler ;D
This is just my personal, recreational, path. I have the greatest admiration for the skill and discipline of those who can set themselves more demanding goals, but it's not for every one. I want to live to shoot the thing!
-
Myself , im like many of you in that I simply do not like to try and recreate a duplicate of someone else’s work . Myself I find it rather stifling . I do however believe that it can be a very good training tool but only as long as it doesn’t interrupt a persons own interpretations , imagination and artistry .
At one time , many years ago I took and art class in collage . The professor set a picture of a goose decoy on a table that she had painted and said draw what you see . Well I drew the goose decoy . But it board me to death . So I added a couple grain stocks , some shotgun shells and a goose call .
When she saw my drawing she commented on the composition , form and shading . Even went so far as to say the artistry was wonderful . Then proceeded to give me an F because the things I added , were not in her painting . I packed up me easel, pencils and left . Never went back , just wasn’t interested . If I cant make something my own then I just don’t feel like its mine . It will always be , X made by X ,recreated by X . I just don’t like being that 3rd X
-
I like doing all sorts of things. The most boring thing to me, is something that I'm used to doing. It might be interpretive or comtemporary, it might "define me", but if it's repetitive, it's boring.
Bench copies push me to do things I'd not normally do, so I like them. A contemporary rifle might be one of a kin, so I like that.. Sure , you get into something that's popular and do it with variation again and again, but with me only for a time.
John Bivins is a good example. No one has influenced me more. But after the third 1770 Lancaster carved like a European furniture maker, I'd be inclined to move on.
-
I know this for certain. The bulk of our historically correct bench copies are made underneath 21st century lighting and with modern tools. One can draw the line wherever they choose. The american longrifle and it's golden age was not tethered by baroque or rococo styling. It was contemporary for its time. Surely there were Gunsmiths that scoffed at builders who strayed from traditional carvings and architecture much like some here do now. In fact I would venture to say that more than one apprentice left the master prematurely for these reasons. And now we copy the work of the apprentice!
-
My gunbuilding has run the gamut. And I am not finished yet. I started with almost zero information and almost as little skill. Much of the information that I had came from pictures in Dixie's catalogue, or from the brand new books I acquired, such as Baird's first Hawken book. My first rifles were not good, but it was a start. Back in the 70's the popularity of the Hawken rifle was a considerable stimulant, and I set about to recreate them as well as I could, with the components then available. I greedily devoured every bit of information I could find, and purchased Wayne Robideaux's blueprint set. My next couple of rifles featured all handmade hardware - even locks. The satisfaction level was gratifying. But when I ventured out on my own, I built a very ugly rifle - several of them in fact. A humble beginning.
So what has influenced my gunbuilding, and I might say the entire venture, is how much information I have been able to acquire. That has been a journey in and of itself. My first real revelations came from Kindig's Golden Age book, and Merrille Lindsay's Kentucky Rifle book. Immediately my work became more interesting and a lot more credible, and it seemed to be appreciated because folks continued to give me commissions.
For the next twenty years or so, I did not venture very far from the comfort of the original longrifles, and even now, I delight in taking an example of what we now agree to be an exemplary examples of original work, and doing my utmost to replicate it. The joy of this comes in part from the research that goes into the rifle: searching for as many images of a particular piece, communicating with knowledgeable builders and collectors, and then applying the information. My Kuntz rifle is an example of that, though it is not a copy but a compilation of Kuntz work.
I have a project on the back burner that will eventually become a southern rifle, and this one is going to come right out of my head. Becoming a subscriber to this web site has, without reservation, been the biggest influence to my gunbuilding life.
Many thanks to you all.
-
My opinion is that local gunsmiths often took in traveling gunsmiths or apprentices, when they needed help. This was quite common I suspect. This practice often introduced local gunsmiths, to styles and techniques, from outside their area. So, guns a bit outside the classic schools don't bother me. That being said, anything can be taken over to edge. A good example is the recent rat rod fad in the hot rod culture. It started out using the techniques, and styles of the early hot rodders, before the advent of massive aftermarket parts availability. But, it very soon got completely crazy. The creations today are nothing like the early cars. The same holds true with longrifles, and the mixed parts, and styles, seen on some modern creations. When I first got into muzzleloaders, these original parts guns were called blacksmith guns. Mostly because the metal parts from broken guns often ended their days at the blacksmiths shop. I have seen many of these horrid creations over the years. Many of the modern mixed style guns closely resemble these train wreck rifles. A good rule of thumb, is if you have to do a ton of mental yoga to justify your design, maybe you need to think about something a little closer to a known school.
Hungry Horse
-
I suppose I could ramble on and not make much sense to anyone but myself, so I'll let
Phil Sampson, as popularized by T.J. Sheppard say it for me, metaphorically speaking. Creative license ;)!
Robby
I've known some painted ladies that sparkled in the light
Country girls that loved the lovers moon
Some I never really knew, though I always wanted to
Some I only met once in a room
Some said they liked my smile, others of 'em stayed a while
While others left me on the run
This is the only way, only way I have to say
I loved 'em every one
Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun
Here's to the ladies in saloons and living rooms
Summer nights that lasted until dawn
Here's to the memories, everyone's a part of me
Oh, I loved 'em every one
Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun
Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun
-
Historical correctness is important to me, but I don't think it is overwhelmingly limiting of creativity. It just means working within the "artistic vocabulary" of the area and period.
Quick, limited, example: look at the way animals were drawn on powder horns in the period of, say, 1750-1800. Pay particular attention to the shading, and the outlines. You find similar outlines and shading on animals engraved on rifles--bison engraved on Hawken patchboxes, tigers engraved on English rifles, etc.--as well as in period illustrations. What they engraved on rifles, scratched on powder horns, etc, was shaped by what they saw--which in turn was shaped by the limitations of their technology. For the most part, detailed realistic engraving, scrimshaw, etc, didn't start to appear until after the advent of photography.
A rifle's design was shaped by the art and architecture (both formal and vernacular) of the time and area, as well as the needs and stylistic expectations of the customer. When I approach a build, I try to look at what I know was done (from surviving examples), and the environment in which it was created. That sets the parameters, creativity exists within those parameters.
-
Creativity is a key element of every art form. It is generally a major factor that separates the standouts from the rest of the field.
Therefore, I would have to say that creativity is also key to gunbuilding. However, if it is not at least rooted in historical correctness, it does not appeal to me.
My great interest in this pursuit is the history, beauty and fascination with the guns that were made, and the people that made and used them 200 + years ago. Why then would I be interested in making or owning a gun that bears little or no resemblance to those historic pieces?
Well made copies and interpretations of original works, as well as modern fantasy guns whose lineage is obviously linked to actual historic examples are both very appealing to me.
Without creativity there would have been no "Golden Age" of the longrifle. Having said that, the "Golden Age" is what first hooked me, so I'm not trying to reinvent it.
Jeff
-
Thanks Jim for the thread and I agree with a number of the guys here on this thread that your work is a very well balanced mix of the tradional building process with an artisic design that pushes the envelope. Which is my mind is a good thing.
My only project that attempted to duplicate an original as closely as possible was the documentary copy that Darrin and I did on the Sheetz rifle project for the CLA last year. We literally spent hours pouring over every detail of that rifle. Thanks to Bob and Linda Melancon who owns the original for allowing us access to the rifle to compare the copy to the original, if not for this I doubt we could have pulled the project off.
The best compliment that I had on the rifle came from Mark Silver. When I pulled the rifle out of its case to show it to Mark at first he thought it was an original gun. It was not until he saw mine and Darrin's name on the barrel did he relaize it was a contemporary rifle.
That is what Darrin and worked so hard to accomplish, realism.
I do not want to make a career out of copying rifles but I do want realism in my work. The thing I learned most in making the copy of the Sheetz rifle is how John Jacob went about his work and what tools he used and what finish that he used. By struggling to know how he did his work it made me a better builder.
I also think that builders back in the day barrowed from each other and took designs with them as they traveled. I also think that builders changed styles as they moved. You can see this in John Armstrongs work. Look at the difference in his early work compared to his later work when he had developed his "pattern" that all of his later rifles becamed to be. Peter White is another example. His early work had that Maryland look and feel and after he moved to Bedford his rifles developed what came to be know as the Bedford rifle.
I personally am at the stage that I want to develope what I hope will become the Jim Parker style of rifle building. I don't know if that will ever happen but it will not be for lack of trying.
Good luck to all my brother builders.
-
I don't think it is hard to believe that a costumer could have seen a rifle from Virginia/Caralinas or even new England and requested certain details put on their rifle say from Lancaster. through out history artists always looked to the past for inspiration to create something new.
First welcome to ALR, hope you enjoy your stay.
I have always thought that when men, especially militia men were marched into strange (to them) areas that they saw things that were not commonly used in their own areas. I feel sure that many of them would have tried some of these things on their own after the campaign/war was over. I suspect this applied to their weapons and probably their dress as well. Wallace Gusler once told me that when the men from the "southern colonies" marched to Boston during the Rev War the locals there had not seen the hunting coats/frocks that the southern men were wearing. I believe he also mentioned they had not seen the longrifles that they were carrying. Surely some of them were anxious to try some of the different ideas after they got back home. (bet you never thought you would see PA men described as "southern") ;D
Dennis
Dennis,
Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states? Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?
Gus
-
I found the importance of creativity mentioned here a little bit surprising. After seeing (and having) many guns attacked for non HC/PC (whatever that is), I almost came to the conclusion that copies were all that mattered. Some of these copies/near copies are stunningly handsome and I admire anyone who can pull off such a build. Finances seem to always stand in the way as I lusted after one of these really detailed guns.
In reality I would not be thrilled with a close copy; they're just not my thing. Any gun I have built must accommodate me, not the other way around. As long as it is recognizable as a SMR/Lancaster/Ohio half stock/etc. at first glance, then I am satisfied. Nothing wrong with a Lancaster, etc that is a bit generic. Some features have to be modified to fit an individual properly (a custom gun, in other words) ; a replica of a museum piece won't always do that. I've learned a lot by following this thread. I hope these sort of discussions continue.
-
Interesting, Micah. Lately I've been interested in reading about art forgers and their success, often because famous auction houses are more interested in the price of a work than its authenticity. Christie's no longer guarantees the veracity of anything they sell. Many successful forgers began by trying to become artists by copying masters. Some produced viable fakes by merely swapping in the foreground of one work over the background from another. From there it's a short hop to having absorbed the finest points of an artist's style that entirely new "lost" works get painted. One forger, Van Meegeren, was only exposed when a "Vermeer" he'd forged and sold to Goering surfaced after WWII. He was accused of being a Nazi collaborator, which carried the death penalty. To avoid hanging, he confessed to the lesser crime of art forgery. Some of the successful forgers got pushed in that direction when critics panned their original works, and so went about duping the art world's critics, experts, and auctioneers with their fakes.
-
I'll keep it short. Creativity staying with in historical context is what I'm all about the past couple years. It's probably obvious to anyone who knows my work. That's what all the graffiti and antiquing comes from, purely entertainment and artistic statement. It's what keeps me from not going out and kicking a chicken from boredom.
-
Soaking up what I can on ALR again tonight and finding this discussion informative and inspiring. From someone relatively "new in town", I continue to form my perspective regarding HC. Refreshing to see creativity connected to the building of HC guns. Having seen and admired a lot of work done by you guys I am equally interested in the journey you have made and the point you are at.........waiting to see more of you tremendously talented builders with HC roots continue to throw together creativity, boredom and passion.
Rich
-
For a later example, the Hawken brothers built plains rifles and local rifles of smaller caliber at less cost, but one can see the architectural similarities. Would someone have success going to the Hawken shop and asking for a perch belly rifle?
Rich,
Your post took me back to the 70's when I first got my copies of John Baird's books. I remember seeing the couple of Hawken rifles with "shotgun" buttplates and thinking, "Gee, I wonder how the owners talked the Hawkens into that?!" Grin. Having said that, I could see myself wanting the buttplate in a shape like that.
Gus
-
Gents,
I do not have the knowledge or experience many if not most of you all have, so have found this thread very interesting.
What I wonder about is in the lifetime career of an historic builder and the rifles he built, is did he settle on a style that pleased his own thoughts on what a rifle should be and then modified it slightly to a customer's tastes when doing bespoke work?
I also wonder if most or all the rifles he built during his career could be absolutely identified to him by someone else, if he did not sign the barrel or make some kind of distinguishing mark? IOW, could some of his own rifles be considered "inaccurate copies" or "only close to" his work and perhaps made by someone else? I seem to get this impression when people comment some unidentified original rifles could be attributed to two or three original smiths?
I know if I lived in the time period (whatever time period you choose) and walked into a shop to order a rifle, I would NOT want an exact copy of another rifle as it more than likely would not fit me correctly. Further, the more parts the smith actually made himself by hand, there would be more variation as the parts were handmade. They would be "close" and probably discernible as to at least the smith's style if not made by his own hands, but they would not be identical. Though I truly respect and admire the craftsmanship of anyone today who can make an identical copy of a rifle, I wonder if it was ever something an original smith would have considered or worried about?
Then the question comes to mind how much creativity the original smith allowed to himself, because it WAS his "work" and how he made a living. I imagine he had the most opportunity for creativity in his carving, engraving and other decorative work - but that would also have to include his skill level at the time he made the rifle in his career? Still, he had to "get the rifle out the door" to get paid and make a living, so I imagine that somewhat limited his creativity?
Just some thoughts and questions that came to mind while reading this thread.
Gus
-
The original makers seem to have run the gamut as far as creativity is concerned, as builders do today. George Schroyer was one of the most creative in the range of carving and patchbox designs over a long career, but still had signatures that make his work easy to spot or at least attribute with some amount of confidence. Maybe working over a long period of time influences the creativity of the maker also. Bonewitz comes to mind as a maker of great skill and artistry but whose rifles seem to fall into easily recognized "models"; a couple patchbox designs, the carving almost always the same (but exemely attractive and well executed). He is one of my favorite makers- guess I am saying he had great design and stuck with it.
-
I am currently at a point in my short building experience of trying to capture the look and feel of period builders. I appreciate and enjoy contemporary creativity as well. As far as my creations go I like the hand crafted look as opposed to perfect precision.... Which I am probably not capable of anyway, lol.
-
So how did all these different school's or designs develop throughout the specific regions of the country? Why is a Southern Mountain Rifle design different from a Kentucky Rifle design? Did design follow utility or was it purely the creative vision of the builders? Did these specific designs become popular only due to availability or was it customer demand that drove design?
Did builders like Haines, Dickert, Beck and the Hawken's (along with all the others) become respected gunsmiths by sitting in their shops waiting around for people to order rifles that resembled something the customer saw in a different region of the country? Or, were they building their own creative designs to increase inventory for "off the rack" sales? Would not a builder need to put their original product it in the hands of the end user and then through word of mouth those products established a reputation for durability, reliability, accuracy and aesthetics?
-
A couple recent posts touch on how creativity would have entered into the work of the original gunmakers.
It would seem that almost all of the gunmakers, whether by habit or by design, developed their own style to some degree or another. This seems to be true for most all artists and artisans past and present.
It's interesting to me to look at a few different approaches of the early smiths at freeing up their creativity.
As recently mentioned, Schroyer was seemingly unafraid to try many different designs for his carving and patchboxes, as judged by the wide variations of signed and attributed pieces of his, which survive.
Next consider J. P. Beck. To my knowledge, his work shows a fair amount of variation but several familiar features pop into my head when I think of him. Namely The "whale tale" patchbox finial and several very Beck like variations of a Daisy finial, along with some oft repeated carving features and hardware.
Thirdly, consider the approach of one of my all time favorite makers, George Eister. The vast majority of his surviving pieces are almost instantly recognizable because of his distinctive patchbox design, stock architecture, hardware and his considerable carving and engraving skills. Though his work does not show nearly the variation of say Schroyer, or even Beck, it certainly does not lack creativity.
His creativity is seen in the small carving and engraving details that make each gun unique, even while it exhibits Eister's signature style.
Jeff
-
I try very hard to imagine what it was like back then. I would guess that a gunsmith would use the same techniques if nothing else to be conservative. Similar stocking, carving, engraving, and manufacturing of parts. It is risky to practice new design or technique, and perhaps this kept regional builders in their school.
What makes me more curious is what I call "the ugly gun". We have all seen them. Original guns that are ugly to the modern eye. Be it architecture or finish, the ugly gun has a place in our history. We see mostly the finer rifles of the day but we must remember that the ugly gun was firing at game and people in its day. Perhaps these were busted up after the civil war in the south, or destroyed when an army demands that it's foes relinquish their arms. I imagine that the French and British destroyed many guns as they had no use for irregular arms in their arsenal. Also I imagine that Indians were very hard on their firearms and that these were bustEd up or torn apart for parts.
At least that's my excuse for the ugly guns I build, HC after all. ;)
-
I've wondered about that too, I am personally not a subscriber to just reproducing certain schools, periods, etc. Am currently building a "back woods gun", light weight , slim and .55 cal. (30 balls to the pound). Have also decided to make my own lock based on a Whatley, fairly large,probably late 17th century. Probably won't pass muster here---But, it will be all mine the way I want it. Of course I am just a crazy old man from the back woods. ;D :D ???
Brother,you are in good company here.Dave in the mountains of WVa ;D
-
The Ian Pratt rifle featured on the contemporary builders blog from MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 is on my to build radar soon, not a copy of anything but tastefully done in a style that just looks good. Woodbury-ish and well executed.
Build and own what you like and admire, though if it is weird enough be prepared for some strange looks along the way.
Ken
-
I have read all these posts with great interest, trying to figure out the mindset of those builders who visit here. Well, it runs the gamut!
Going back to the first page of this thread, John Bivins classification was brought up, and I have no problem saying I fit squarely in #2. I still find great satisfaction recreating a piece that "looks like" it came out a given builders shop back in the late 18th century. Not exactly (dimensionally) like an original, but let's say "from the hand or shop" of a Beck or Dickert or Schroyer or Hachen, etc. It is very hard and disciplined work to do and maybe that is why so many turned away from it early on. Besides my attempts at artwork are not that creative as far as dreaming up something NEW. But I can draw or recreate in wood almost anything I can see.
I also choose not to receate a 21st century piece, because my customers want something that looks like it's from the 18th century, like there clothes, accoutrements and camp gear, etc.
Make sense?
-
I also choose not to receate a 21st century piece, because my customers want something that looks like it's from the 18th century, like there clothes, accoutrements and camp gear, etc.
Make sense?
The only thing that strikes me odd with that statement, and I'm not directing it specifically at you but at the re-enactors in general.
They are (pretending) to be in the 1700's/1800's (which ever), the clothing is period correct and looks like "Ma" just finished sewing it by hand. Likewise their tools and accessories are right out of the period, look like they were maybe made by the local blacksmith or bought, imported, to one of the hardware stores.
Yet, when it comes to their gun/rifle it has been artificially aged 200 years.
I just don't get that part of it. If it's supposed to be 1700-1800 should it look "new".
I just can't see someone, back in the day, walking in to Dickert's or Armstrong's shop and saying - yes, I would like that rifle but can you make it look 200 years old...
-
Galamb, I agree, it doesn't add up.
But MOST guys I know, want a gun that looks "seasoned" a couple years. You walk into camp with a new shiny, polished up rifle and you take a LOT of ribbing it seems. Same goes with shiny new buckskins or a white shirt. My current build is like Jon Shreiht's 1760 rifle (RCA-18), so if I age it 2 yrs. it's still OK for a F&I or Pre-Rev character. You age it 100-200 yrs. and most guns would no longer be shootable!
-
I also choose not to receate a 21st century piece, because my customers want something that looks like it's from the 18th century, like there clothes, accoutrements and camp gear, etc.
Make sense?
The only thing that strikes me odd with that statement, and I'm not directing it specifically at you but at the re-enactors in general.
They are (pretending) to be in the 1700's/1800's (which ever), the clothing is period correct and looks like "Ma" just finished sewing it by hand. Likewise their tools and accessories are right out of the period, look like they were maybe made by the local blacksmith or bought, imported, to one of the hardware stores.
Yet, when it comes to their gun/rifle it has been artificially aged 200 years.
I just don't get that part of it. If it's supposed to be 1700-1800 should it look "new".
I just can't see someone, back in the day, walking in to Dickert's or Armstrong's shop and saying - yes, I would like that rifle but can you make it look 200 years old...
LOL. Yes, Galamb, we reenactors are sometimes unpredictable, quirky and even sometimes downright contradictory as you put so well.
I've been a reenactor for almost 40 years from the French and Indian War, Rev War, War of 1812 and War Between the States. I also see no point in aging a firearm or any other gear to look any older than it would have looked in the time period I portray and of course how old and perhaps worn it naturally would have been then. It is totally contradictory to what reenactors are supposed to do, IMO.
Since the 70's, there is a great deal of new/old information that has become easily accessible and items have become more and more authentic and that's a very good thing to my thoughts. Yet I also understand our pocket books will allow very few people to be totally "authentic" to the period, if that is even possible, which it probably is not and will never be due to the fact things we use will almost never be how they were actually made in the period. For example, I doubt anyone today will take beaver pelts and use Mercury to separate the finer hair to make the best beaver felt for hats. Another example is while I have always strived to get period correct eyeglasses, I have no problem with getting my prescription lenses put in them.
As to period correct guns, only a very few of us can afford to have a gun built exactly like it was done in the early to late 18th century. Back in the 70's, I started telling fellow reenactors (who were what I considered overly demanding) that if someone like Wallace Gusler did not hand make their gun, it was not authentic no matter how good it looked. In the 70's, I used a Navy Arms Brown Bess Carbine to portray a Continental Marine Sergeant while knowing it was not a "correct" Sergeant's Fusil. However, no one was even making a correct repro lock for one then and buying an original or having one totally handmade was out of the question. In the 70's and early 80's, I used my Old Flint Rifle for reenacting French and Indian War and Rev War even though it is a Golden Age Rifle, because that was as close as I could afford. I retired that gun from reenacting those periods in the late 80's, though. Yet even in the early 2000's, I occasionally reenacted French and Indian War Period with my Perdersoli Short Land Pattern Musket that did not come out until a few years after the war. Sure, I would have loved to have had a P1742 made from a Rifle Shop or TOW kit, but I just could not afford one for how little French and Indian War reenacting I was ever going to do. Making and buying and replacing items to keep as correct an impression as possible for a Private Soldier in the 42nd Royal Highland Infantry Regiment, The Black Watch, and for the Rev War is expensive enough as it is. GRIN.
Today we are blessed with an exceedingly wider range of reproduction locks, barrels and furniture than we even dreamed about in the 70's. That makes it much easier to be "as historically correct as possible" than ever before, yet we will never be totally authentic.
Bottom line, I'm the type of reenactor who LOVES rifles and guns that look like they could come out of an 18th century shop or Arsenal, but does not have to be an exact copy of any one original rifle. I also don't care if modern machines were used to make them and I certainly don't care if the screw threads are hand cut or even correct TPI for the period. I applaud those who try to follow a certain school or builder and make their guns as close as possible to the style and some variation was normal back then, so why not now, as long as they are keeping generally true to the period and style?!!.
Gus
.
-
Galamb, I agree, it doesn't add up.
But MOST guys I know, want a gun that looks "seasoned" a couple years. You walk into camp with a new shiny, polished up rifle and you take a LOT of ribbing it seems. Same goes with shiny new buckskins or a white shirt. My current build is like Jon Shreight's 1760 rifle (RCA-18), so if I age it 2 yrs. it's still OK for a F&I or Pre-Rev character. You age it 100-200 yrs. and most guns would no longer be shootable!
Excellent point.
Even with British Rev War Military reenactors, who often at least try to follow at least some of the standards of care, cleaning and polishing demanded in the 18th century British Army in Garrison - one of the first things we suggest people do is clean them with as correct materials as possible to take off that "new" look when they get a new musket.
Gus
-
But MOST guys I know, want a gun that looks "seasoned" a couple years. You walk into camp with a new shiny, polished up rifle and you take a LOT of ribbing it seems. Same goes with shiny new buckskins or a white shirt. My current build is like Jon Shreight's 1760 rifle (RCA-18), so if I age it 2 yrs. it's still OK for a F&I or Pre-Rev character. You age it 100-200 yrs. and most guns would no longer be shootable!
Depends on the user. I have read a carolina guns usefulness as a gun averaged about two years. I personally used to do 30+ weekend events a year. the gun I carried over those years was near worn out with wear from the elements alone let alone the amount of shooting I did. The guy living out on the edge used guns up in a short period of time.
-
Historical Correctness has a place in living history event participation. I'm mean that is the point of that kind of activity. So gun building for a customer or yourself to portray a longhunter in the early 1770s you need a gun that would be of that era and remembering that those men were not wealthy so you might keep that in mind when planing the embellishments. On the other hand building a gun to please yourself or a customer that wants nice gun the shoots well or looks good hanging over the fireplace then you have a very lot of leeway. So being left to our own devices it is really the ability to apply sound architectural principles to the design. Training and practice will augment the limiting factor which is talent. Anyone can get better with training and practice but is held to a level by aptitude. That said a guy that studies architecture and understands that design is far more important than craftsmanship will go further towards the kind of guns I enjoy seeing than someone that can carve the most perfect c scrolls, engrave like a silversmith and run silver wire by the mile but does not quite know how a lock mortise should transition into the wrist and for-stock.
-
The way I see things is that the one big thing that differentiates builders is the importance of historical correctness. That is how you prioritize historical correctness versus creativity. These can be completely compatible, but often are not. Personally I favor a look, appeal etc. over following exactly what may have been done in the past. It's hard for me to repeat things that I don't find appealing. Design and style are super important in my work. With that said, I understand and appreciate other approaches, even if they might not work well for me.
Glad everyone enjoyed the topic. I know I did.
-
Haveing a aged gun seems normal to me....used not abused. "It fits the time era". As I see it, nice patina and wear marks, are the same as worn blue jeans today. We all have our center fire guns, and they have 'wear' on them ;)
I have a 'Sunday go to meeting' suit and shoes....but out in the woods, everything is aged....oops....I mean used looking, from my shoes to the rifle....leather gear gets good only after it broken in.....and IF you ever get a chance to ride a horse with a brand new saddle....at the end of the day.....you will want to trade for the old well worn used saddle ;D
So....yup, I say a nice rifle is one with character on it....the wood smoothed and stain from carry, and the small scratches from bushes and banging against canteens or camp gear.....
It's all in the eye of the beholder......
Marc
-
Haveing a aged gun seems normal to me....used not abused. "It fits the time era". As I see it, nice patina and wear marks, are the same as worn blue jeans today. We all have our center fire guns, and they have 'wear' on them ;)
Wear yes, but not 200 years worth of wear. Our clothing and firearms are more easily cared for now than then. Soldiers now have no problem getting 6 months to a year of usage from their uniforms, uniforms back then were aloted to last 30-90 days in field usage, boots 30 days.
I have a 'Sunday go to meeting' suit and shoes....but out in the woods, everything is aged....oops....I mean used looking, from my shoes to the rifle....leather gear gets good only after it broken in.....and IF you ever get a chance to ride a horse with a brand new saddle....at the end of the day.....you will want to trade for the old well worn used saddle ;D
Back then they had maybe 3 sets of clothing if they were fortunate. I feel that way about every saddle I ride in, new or used.
So....yup, I say a nice rifle is one with character on it....the wood smoothed and stain from carry, and the small scratches from bushes and banging against canteens or camp gear.....
And this character should be earned honestly not faked.
It's all in the eye of the beholder......
Marc
My opines in maroon
-
What's better art: a Rembrandt or a Picasso?
You may like Rembrandt for six perfectly sound reasons.
The next guy likes Picasso for six perfectly sound reasons.
Who's wrong?
-
The worst thing that I can imagine is for all guns to look the same . There are too many the same now.
-
What's better art: a Rembrandt or a Picasso?
You may like Rembrandt for six perfectly sound reasons.
The next guy likes Picasso for six perfectly sound reasons.
Who's wrong?
Neither is wrong . Because both are completely different
Both also broke from the norm and thus became distinctly individually recognized .
So I guess Acer , the real question would then be one of would we know either if they had restricted themselves to only recreating in exact detail the works of those they held on high . Most likely not thus the world would be without 2 of the greatest artists in history
IMO what a lot of us do however is maintain a given form , lets say following the Baroque style of Rembrandt . Yet at the same time not copying exactly his work thus its different and individually distinctive ,but still Baroque
-
Art evolves.
http://underhammers.blogspot.com/
;D
-
Everything evolves. There are two constants in the universe. One is the speed of light and the other is change. That is why stopping climate change is such of a phony issue. Change cannot be stopped.
Every great artist was different in his time. Presley was different. Ricky Scaggs, Boutet, Melchoir Fortney The list is long
-
What's better art: a Rembrandt or a Picasso?
You may like Rembrandt for six perfectly sound reasons.
The next guy likes Picasso for six perfectly sound reasons.
Who's wrong?
A Rembrandt painting of Megan Fox....now that would be correct.
;D
I like old marlin rifles...and IF I 'cleaned' one up~devalued~ but then again IF I have a prestine one and shot it...devalued! :P
no absolutes......we all just like what we like....but NOT a Picasso.....Megan deserves better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I personally do not think a picasso is art
-
Depends on the user. I have read a carolina guns usefulness as a gun averaged about two years. I personally used to do 30+ weekend events a year. the gun I carried over those years was near worn out with wear from the elements alone let alone the amount of shooting I did. The guy living out on the edge used guns up in a short period of time.
Heck, I've completely wore out a modern machined Rem shotgun over the past 20 years, including two barrels and two forestocks, and that's just with 40-60 days of waterfowling each season. Hard to imagine the abuse a gun would have taken on the frontier in the 1700's out in the elements most days and nights and how quickly it would look abused.
-
Depends on the user. I have read a carolina guns usefulness as a gun averaged about two years. I personally used to do 30+ weekend events a year. the gun I carried over those years was near worn out with wear from the elements alone let alone the amount of shooting I did. The guy living out on the edge used guns up in a short period of time.
Heck, I've completely wore out a modern machined Rem shotgun over the past 20 years, including two barrels and two forestocks, and that's just with 40-60 days of waterfowling each season. Hard to imagine the abuse a gun would have taken on the frontier in the 1700's out in the elements most days and nights and how quickly it would look abused.
my point exactly, thank you. ;D
-
What's better art: a Rembrandt or a Picasso?
You may like Rembrandt for six perfectly sound reasons.
The next guy likes Picasso for six perfectly sound reasons.
Who's wrong?
Wrong? Not Michelangelo da Caravaggio!
dp
-
Oh, boy. I need a new analogy.
Likes and dislikes cannot be argued (successfully*).
*we do excel at arguing over things that have no right answer.
-
Depends on the user. I have read a carolina guns usefulness as a gun averaged about two years. I personally used to do 30+ weekend events a year. the gun I carried over those years was near worn out with wear from the elements alone let alone the amount of shooting I did. The guy living out on the edge used guns up in a short period of time.
Heck, I've completely wore out a modern machined Rem shotgun over the past 20 years, including two barrels and two forestocks, and that's just with 40-60 days of waterfowling each season. Hard to imagine the abuse a gun would have taken on the frontier in the 1700's out in the elements most days and nights and how quickly it would look abused.
If you treated a flintlock the same way you treated the 870 its not going to shoot. Letting it get wet for example.
So if out on the frontier with a lot of people around who will kill you for what you have or just for fun you need to keep the flintlock is shooting condition. Covers were far more common that people might think I suspect. Everyone in the west used them. There is a surviving full length cover with the Dickert in "Moravian Gun Making".
I posted some photos of a late percussion rifle recently. From the wear on the locks bridle its likely been shot a lot Its not beat all to heck though it has scars. It has the varnish worn off in the high wear areas but other than that its in pretty good shape.
And I know modern FLs that have seen a lot of use, foot and horseback. These do not look like the "aged" guns unless the owner has aged them. But of course the la-la land people who really don't use stuff but wanna look like they do don't like to hear it. My Dad has a something in the range of 40+ year old 742 Remington. I don't think even he knows how many deer, elk and after he moved North, Caribou and Moose its killed. He homesteaded in AK with it trapping in the winter. He used to kill Caribou for other homesteaders who lacked the skills to be homesteaders. Lots of snowmachine miles too I suspect. It look pretty worn but its really been used. But he is not known for taking care of things either. If I get to AK this summer I will take some photos.
I suppose people could look to the Haymaker rifle. It was brought back after its owner was killed in Kentucky. Used for years afterwards. The lock removed, maybe so the kids could play with it in its old age. Yeah it shows wear. But I bet it looks a lot more worn now that is did the day the natives killed its original owner in 1774 (IIRC).
Dan
-
Should we split this into a discussion of the merits of aging, or stick to the topic of creativity? We can split it easily if that's the main topic now.
-
Should we split this into a discussion of the merits of aging, or stick to the topic of creativity? We can split it easily if that's the main topic now.
Aging is a large part of creativity and belongs in this conversation. We already know who likes it and who doesn't so maybe we don't need to rehash that part of it.
-
I have to agree with Mike for once, aging my guns is part of the creative process. I am experimenting with it; gun aging I compare to painting, adding color and distress, layer by layer, until I achieve the right tonality and look. It's all subjective, personal, challenging and very enjoyable.
Some guns I like to build as new. Try as I like, I can't keep them from aging. :D
Either way, for me, history comes first. Books, museums, research, hands-on study, are all tools for building a gun, just as chisels, rasps, scrapers and paint are tools(and tire irons and chains-for Mike Brooks).
-
I personally do not think a picasso is art
::)
Sounds like some one hasn't experienced the breadth of Pablo's work over his lifetime. But we digress...
-
As a novice builder and a non-historian I believe that I can offer a completely different point of view on this topic...
I log into this site and a few others almost daily because I appreciate the craftsmanship and skills which are displayed in the wonderful pieces which are produced by many of the members here. I'm also a lover of guns of all sorts but I will add that for me guns should be constructed of wood and classic metals. I have no use for materials such as plastic or aluminum in gun building. Modern day guns which employ these materials become less like art to me and more like modern tools.
One does not necessarily have to be a historian in order to appreciate a fine piece of workmanship even if the piece is representative of an original, historical piece
If we consider music for instance. Would it be wrong to hear a historic song played with modern instruments such as how we often hear our own National anthem played? Of course not. The intent of the song remains intact and the beauty is reinterpreted by the modern artist who performs it.
I like old cars because of the classic lines and nostalgia that goes along with them. I wouldn't know if the hubcaps were't correct however on a given reproduction and to be quite honest, to a guy like me it would make absolutely no difference. Assuming that the builder's work showed evidence of his skills as a craftsman I'd most certainly be impressed by the workmanship. I love old wooden boats too. Modern boat builders who stick with original materials turn out absolutely beautiful vessels. If the builder builds a sailboat of wood, brass and linen would it be any less beautiful if he incorporated a modern head, navigation system or even auxiliary motor. If, on the other hand the intent is at restoration rather than creation then the whole thing changes as we already have a model to aspire toward. Gun builders are not necessarily gun restorationists. (Did I just invent this word?)
While I can fully understand and appreciate why a builder / historian would strive toward "recreating" a piece which incorporates the styles of a particular school or even a particular builder at a certain point in his life, to me this is far less important than producing a thing of beauty and function which is easily recognizable as an early style rifle but to my eye perhaps the style is less important than the overall impression of the piece. In short, If the piece is built well and resembles an original in most respects than it most certainly is just as valid of an attempt as a piece that holds strictly to any one style or original piece. I'm much more concerned with the beauty and functionality of the piece than it's historical correctness.
Here is an excellent example of what I'm trying to say. I can't for the life of me find the original post. It may or may not have been on this forum. I apologize in advance that I cannot remember who the builder was. Perhaps he'll chime in or someone else will fill in the blanks.
The only photo that I could come up with is this one. I absolutely adore this gun. The builder's imagination and talents are represented wonderfully here. While it's certainly not HC it offers many of the features that draw me to classic muzzleloaders. If memory serves me (and it usually doesn't.) He built this for a youngster. The theme is of fish and insects. The stuff that makes little boys flip over rocks or toss a line into the local fish pond. A beautiful gun and a wonderful display of imagination and craftsmanship. Hopefully someone will post better pics.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs272%2Fklarose103%2Fboysgun_zps7589f3d31_zpsc64111db.jpg&hash=bf9da62e325c3c30e131dcf34900c351df1254da) (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/klarose103/media/boysgun_zps7589f3d31_zpsc64111db.jpg.html)
As it is with most endeavors in life, there will be parameters on how things should and should not be done. We all do this to some degree. I believe that problems arise when we begin to judge the work of others based upon our own sense of just what those parameters should be.
-
While I do not agree with aging, yes, it is a creative process. It also is a topic for the discussion of historical correctness
But since its grown out of what I call the wannabe hippie buckskinner (as opposed to people who actually DO things other than set around camp looking like hippie buckskinners) movement I see it as a fad. I started doing buckskinner stuff about 1967.
But since its a fad, actually almost a cult, adherents delude themselves into thinking its correct. Its not. As I pointed out before I have used guns in various weather conditions and have friends who have done so more than I and my fathers guns. I have a cheap 22 revolver he was using on the trap line last fall (he is 87 BTW) that I have not cleaned the mud off of yet. I have carried them in the snow and wet until the linseed oil started to cloud so I know what this does to a finish without a little resin in it.
I also know, from conversations with people who did it, that old guns were often given to children to hunt with. One, a WW-1 vet, told me he was given a shotgun to heavy to carry and wore a flat on the buttstock dragging it. He had to lay down to shoot it. Another family's Grandfather gave them, along with two other antique firearms, a TIFFANY Colt to play cowboys and Indians with, I handled all the guns about 30 years ago and got the story. Which one looks the best? The US issue percussion martial pistol. It was still in very nice shape. The Tiffany was more worn, Gold plate and Silver do not stand up as well.
Then we have the "saddle wear" myth. Usually its "wagon wear" they are notoriously hard on firearms if the owner is careless. So when you see a rifle with the forend worn through to the rod its not from being carried on a saddle. A wagon will do this one days travel with an owner not paying attention. "DUI" maybe. So then work down the sharp edges and keep using the rifle.
But of course then the myths and romanticism are more convenient for people to believe than some kid dragging a lockless (so they could not shoot it) old rifle around the house place beating it up. Or its going into a closet 150 years ago being banged around, maybe the kids getting it out and whacking it on door frames since its so long, maybe dropping it now and then before putting it back.
Of course this "aging" thing carries over to numerous other items. Like powder horns, aged fakes are so common now, passed off as antiques that people COPY the fakes thinking the "original" horn shows real age. But then of course the makers never actually USE a horn to any extent so they have no idea how to age one. I have a horn that I made in 1968 and used a lot. Its been squirrel hunting in Iowa, Moose hunting in AK, and used a lot horse packing and hunting in Montana, dunked in a beaver pond in a a horse wreck. Other than the pine base plug not holding a staple anymore and its having a somewhat "raised grain" appearance. Its does not really look like the Most aging is not based on reality its based on what people EXPECT TO SEE.
What a rifle made in 1775 looked like in 1810 or 1910 or 2010 is not how it looked while the original owner was using it at Saratoga. So some one pretending to be one of Morgans Riflemen with a rifle that looks 150 years old should be kicked out of the re-enactment for having gear that is out of context.
THIS is aging in the context of Creativity and Historical Correctness.
I need to go fit a breechplug.
Dan
-
There are so many styles of FL rifles alone that its very difficult to be repetitive unless the maker wants to be. After all JP Beck did a lot of "repetitive" rifles and guns.
Dan
-
Should we split this into a discussion of the merits of aging, or stick to the topic of creativity? We can split it easily if that's the main topic now.
\
The topic also includes historical correctness.
Dan
-
<snip>
Dennis,
Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states? Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?
Gus
Hi Gus
I think this is a myth. They were not as common as in PA and some other colonies perhaps but they were still there. As Burgoyne's force was coming through upstate New York they were being sniped by riflemen. This from the a German Officer. They KNEW it was rifle fire. Who was doing this? Morgan and his men were far way. Then we have Breeds Hill where so many officers and Senior NCOs were killed that they abandoned their traditional regalia for the duration of the War. This is not the hallmark of musket fire. There were riflemen there. Had to be. Then we have Gov. Dongan of New York writing the Gov. of Pa. in 1688 stating that 10% of his Militia force of the previous summer were riflemen. There are ads by Gunmakers in New England who make rifles etc etc. However, if people insist on relying on estate inventories then the numbers get skewed. EVERYONE has a Militia gun. People with no other use for a firearm still had to have one. They sure were not going pay 4 times as much for a rifle that did not make requirements anyway so these are populated with smoothbores. Especially in the cities and more settled areas.
As a result of militia laws the percentage of rifles to smoothbores is ALWAYS skewed in settled areas. By skewed I mean the number of gun OWNERS vs actual SHOOTERS. We also have to remember than hunting in most of PA is not hunting on Chesapeake Bay where the game was shooting waterfowl for the markets. So its really hard to make hard and fast determinations. But I am convinced that there were more rifles in New England than some might care to admit. But then it is called New England ;D
Dan
-
Dennis,
Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states? Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?
Gus
Gus,
Sorry I hadn't replied, we had our show last weekend and I have been distracted for awhile, trying to catch-up.
It was my understanding from Wallace that he believed that was the start of the longrifle, along with the some of the riflemen's clothing, appearing in the New England area.
Dennis
-
Should we split this into a discussion of the merits of aging, or stick to the topic of creativity? We can split it easily if that's the main topic now.
Aging is a large part of creativity and belongs in this conversation. We already know who likes it and who doesn't so maybe we don't need to rehash that part of it.
Makes sense!
-
While I do not agree with aging, yes, it is a creative process. It also is a topic for the discussion of historical correctness
But since its grown out of what I call the wannabe hippie buckskinner (as opposed to people who actually DO things other than set around camp looking like hippie buckskinners) movement I see it as a fad. I started doing buckskinner stuff about 1967.
But since its a fad, actually almost a cult, adherents delude themselves into thinking its correct. Its not.
But of course then the myths and romanticism are more convenient for people to believe than some kid dragging a lockless (so they could not shoot it) old rifle around the house place beating it up.
Dan
People pick their myths, like Dinglehofer believing that Hawken rifles predominated in the fur trade/ rendezvous era. How do people feel about creativity in certain styles of rifles? When is a creative Hawken not a Hawken? Would it need to incorporate concurrent components and stylistic hallmarks from existing known Hawken rifles to be seen as historically correct? Is this necessarily more constrained than a Lancaster 1770s rifle? I would think so. Probably a "JP Beck" build is similarly constrained. This raises the question of when the line is crossed between historical correctness and creativity, which has been addressed on page 1.
-
Im ageing naturally just like my rifles.....
heck...i like both, a flawless Lancaster with #9 wood, and mr. moors moravian aged beautifully......
like Reba and Megan........both are beautiful to me...... ;D
-
While I do not agree with aging, yes, it is a creative process. It also is a topic for the discussion of historical correctness
But since its grown out of what I call the wannabe hippie buckskinner (as opposed to people who actually DO things other than set around camp looking like hippie buckskinners) movement I see it as a fad. I started doing buckskinner stuff about 1967.
But since its a fad, actually almost a cult, adherents delude themselves into thinking its correct.
Dan, while I see your chain of thought, I don't agree with your conclusions, which I hope I am free to do.
Aging is a process, we agree on that.
Maybe gun aging is a fad, the jury is still out on that. But it's also an art. Gun builders are increasingly crossing the threshold into the art world with their gun work. Collectors are buying it, which is one clue. Museums are showing it, which is another affirmation of the concept that the gun can also be art.
But what I think you want me to admit, which I will freely do, and won't argue with you on, is that aging is NOT historically correct. I assume most guns were built as new, and the aging happened over time.
Gun artists get to express their dreams and concepts through their work. If you like to finish your piece as new, that is probably the most historically correct method. If I like to finish my gun as if it saw a year or two of use, that is my artist's prerogative. But is that Historically correct? Not really. But it's my life, my work, so I get to make it any way I like.
Is my gun 'finished as a new gun' historically correct?
Well, golly, where do I begin? Was my iron mined from Adirondack Bog iron? Was my barrel forge welded from flat iron bar? My thimble brass is a modern rolled alloy. My wood was kiln dried. My stock was stained with ferric nitrate.......finished with Tru-Oil....
Oh, my god, I have committed so many faux-pas against PC/HC, I don't think I can use those terms, no matter what I make.
I think I finally agree with you!
Hahahahhahaha. That's funny.
-
Dan,
Do you really think people care whether you agree with aging a gun or not? It's certainly a personal choice. Now, if someone were to say the an artificially aged gun is original then that's a different story. If someone were to point to a modern made and "aged" gun and then say this is how an original gun looks, then that would also probably be a different story. Fact of the matter, in almost all examples, this process just creates a "look". A look that appeals to the sense of style of many highly competent builders and collectors. Why the desire to attempt to insult those who like it? Why the desire to move in the direction of imposing a right or wrong? If it trips your trigger that's fine. If it doesn't well that's cool too. If you choose to respond, please be pointed and address the issues I have brought up above. I find it frustrating to read a diatribe that in the end says little. Haven't we been down this road before?
-
In 100 years I think the aesthetically important longrifles from this era will be the ones that stand apart from all the others from both this era and the originals.
I was looking at the AOLR site earlier and the one thing that stood out to me is the similarities in all the different builders products. Now I am not very well versed in these rifles so my lack of knowledge and inability to pick any one of them out of the crowd really stands out here. There were dozens of people building rifles in that region but it is the Vincent example the contemporary stock copiers picked as the foremost example of the "Ohio halfstock" style of rifle. What is it that made them or any other of the current popular styles stand out in the crowd?
In terms of aging a recently built gun, in 100 years will anyone know it was aged? Will that detract from its collectability? Will it look the same as all the other non-aged guns that aged normally through time or will it look faked?
-
<snip>
Dennis,
Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states? Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?
Gus
Hi Gus
I think this is a myth. They were not as common as in PA and some other colonies perhaps but they were still there. As Burgoyne's force was coming through upstate New York they were being sniped by riflemen. This from the a German Officer. They KNEW it was rifle fire. Who was doing this? Morgan and his men were far way. Then we have Breeds Hill where so many officers and Senior NCOs were killed that they abandoned their traditional regalia for the duration of the War. This is not the hallmark of musket fire. There were riflemen there. Had to be. Then we have Gov. Dongan of New York writing the Gov. of Pa. in 1688 stating that 10% of his Militia force of the previous summer were riflemen. There are ads by Gunmakers in New England who make rifles etc etc. However, if people insist on relying on estate inventories then the numbers get skewed. EVERYONE has a Militia gun. People with no other use for a firearm still had to have one. They sure were not going pay 4 times as much for a rifle that did not make requirements anyway so these are populated with smoothbores. Especially in the cities and more settled areas.
As a result of militia laws the percentage of rifles to smoothbores is ALWAYS skewed in settled areas. By skewed I mean the number of gun OWNERS vs actual SHOOTERS. We also have to remember than hunting in most of PA is not hunting on Chesapeake Bay where the game was shooting waterfowl for the markets. So its really hard to make hard and fast determinations. But I am convinced that there were more rifles in New England than some might care to admit. But then it is called New England ;D
Dan
Hi Dan,
That is some interesting information you presented.
Depending on the time period as in the 17th century, New York was considered “New England” but was it so in the 18th century? If New York was commonly considered to be in “New England” in the 18th century, then that does open possibilities.
First to the Battle of Breed’s (Bunker Hill) . There is little, if any, documentation that rifles were used there and frankly there was no need of them the way the battle played out. None of the American units there were armed with Rifles, though perhaps a very small number of rifles might have been there. The one example of the American Marksman standing on the Parapet and taking out a number of British Soldiers SOUNDS like it could have been a Rifleman, but that falls apart for three reasons. The first reason is that in the original accounts, he was passed loaded guns to shoot and those would have been muskets. The second reason is from both British and American Accounts, the distance the Americans opened fire on the British was AT MOST 60 yards while they were still advancing, though most accounts and including the British accounts, say it was 50 yards or less. As a matter of fact, when Prescott urgently called for reinforcements prior to the battle, Colonels John Stark and James Reed rushed to support them. John Stark learned his military trade as a Lieutenant in Roger’s Rangers. Stark had “Ranging Stakes” driven into the ground at 40 yards from his position and vehemently forbade his troops fire until the British crossed that line. At 50 yards or less where the British stopped to fire, a good shot (as the noted Marksmen probably was) with a musket could easily have taken out many British Soldiers. The third and final reason, though not as good as the first two, is the fact the British eventually killed that American Marksman with Musket Fire. No one can say for sure if they fired volleys or individual shots at the American Marksman, but at that close of range, it could have been either.
The quote from the German Officer who stated they were harassed by RIFLE fire on their way to Saratoga is very interesting, indeed. Does the reference say when and where it happened? The reason I ask is because Morgan and his Riflemen reported to General Gates on 30 August and the skirmishing when the British crossed the Hudson on 17 September were followed by the Battles of Saratoga were on 19 September and 7 October. Morgan’s men were there WELL in time to scout and harass the British and Germans even before the first large skirmish. Though it is difficult at best to document what Morgan’s men did during the 17 days (31 August to 16 September) before the general skirmishing on the 17th, I find it hard to believe that Morgan’s men would have all remained in camp and at least some elements of Morgan’s forces were not sent north to scout and harass Burgoyne’s Army. After all, that is what Morgan and his men had done earlier in the war on the way to Quebec. So it is quite possible to downright probable it was Morgan’s Riflemen who were the ones who shot at the aforementioned German Officer with rifles?
I was extremely interested to read the following from your post. “Then we have Gov. Dongan of New York writing the Gov. of Pa. in 1688 stating that 10% of his Militia force of the previous summer were riflemen.” I would love to see this source as that is an EXTREMELY early account of that large of a percentage of rifles in militia use. I have searched where I can, and admit I have not found the letter. Governor Dongan was recalled by the King by a letter of 22 April of 1688 in the link following this paragraph, so perhaps the letter may have been written before 1688? Perhaps it is in the papers mentioned in the second link following this paragraph?
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=70528
http://alpha2.suffolk.lib.ny.us/search~S46?/dLimerick%2C+Thomas+Dongan%2C+Earl+of%2C+1634-1715+--+Ar/dlimerick+thomas+dongan+earl+of+1634+1715+archives/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=dlimerick+thomas+dongan+earl+of+1634+1715+archives&1%2C1%2C
Your point of “There are ads by Gunmakers in New England who make rifles etc etc.” is the best evidence for rifles in New England. I have read of only very little of such ads prior to the Revolution and would very much like to see them as well. However, such ads would definitely mean there were at least some rifles in use at that time. Excellent point.
Gus
-
Dennis,
Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states? Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?
Gus
Gus,
Sorry I hadn't replied, we had our show last weekend and I have been distracted for awhile, trying to catch-up.
It was my understanding from Wallace that he believed that was the start of the longrifle, along with the some of the riflemen's clothing, appearing in the New England area.
Dennis
Dennis,
Thanks for responding. No problem taking the time to answer and I do envy you and others who could attend the Williamsburg Show. I had to work a modern gun show and I was kicking myself all weekend for not being able to join you all.
Dan made good points about rifles in New England prior to the war, so perhaps it is better to say that the ARW provided a more general knowledge and impetus for longrifles in New England from then on?
Gus
-
Speaking of boredom that can rob the craftsman's/artist's sense of creativity.....
To some or even many of us, perhaps our "dream job or career" would be working at Colonial Williamsburg. However, check out the video linked below where an Interpretive Craftsman talks about the boredom that can come even there. It starts about 11:55 in the video.
http://www.renaissancewoodworker.com/even-williamsburg-tradesmen-make-mistakes/
Gus
-
Speaking of boredom that can rob the craftsman's/artist's sense of creativity.....
Your comment brings to memory a recent conversation I had with Peter Alexander. He was displaying some of his work and I noted that a Silver Armstrong, perhaps one of his more famous pieces was absent.
He noted that he had built a couple for fundraisers and that he had done a number to order. He also told me of a gentleman that had made the trip to his shop to see him.
The man said to him "if money wasn't an object and you were asked to build a representative collection of Armstrong's work, what might you build"
So Peter thinks for a moment and says you would want an early flint, the Silver rifle obviously, a somewhat plain flint, a later percussion and probably a nice matched set of pistols.
To this the gentleman replies "when can you get started".
Peter went on to say that since completing this project he has kinda lost interest in building anything by Armstrong, at least for the foreseeable future.
Made me kinda wonder - did John Armstrong (or plug in any builders name here) get tired of building rifles? did it simply become "a job".
Maybe he dreaded going into the shop to the same degree many of us dread going into work (????)
-
Peter went on to say that since completing this project he has kinda lost interest in building anything by Armstrong, at least for the foreseeable future.
Made me kinda wonder - did John Armstrong (or plug in any builders name here) get tired of building rifles? did it simply become "a job".
Maybe he dreaded going into the shop to the same degree many of us dread going into work (????)
I would say that the answer is probably yes. It doesn't matter if you absolutely love what you are doing, for the most part doing it under production stresses, constraints and budgets would turn anything into pure drudgery. I love WHAT I do for a living, even though there are times I don't like doing it.
-
Speaking of boredom that can rob the craftsman's/artist's sense of creativity.....
Made me kinda wonder - did John Armstrong (or plug in any builders name here) get tired of building rifles? did it simply become "a job".
Maybe he dreaded going into the shop to the same degree many of us dread going into work (????)
I like Clark B's comment that "I love my work there are times I don't like it. " GRIN. I think that pretty much describes what the original builders may have thought at times.
In much of my own career, I built National Match M14's or NM M1911A1 pistols. Having to rebuild 5 NM rifles per week and/or building 3 to 4 new NM rifles from standard M14's per week for 5 to 7 months with a production schedule got tedious. I actually enjoyed being the "Instructor or OJT's" or Apprenticeship Instructor more because it was challenging to teach each student for the three to four week period.
I imagine that carving the stocks, engraving and perhaps the artistic style they put into some of the parts probably relieved some of the tedium. I also bet they looked forward to and enjoyed making something unusual or even repairing guns made by others. The last would have been a special treat to see how others did what they did.
In one of the old Colonial Williamsburg films, they showed a customer ordering an axe smaller than usual for his young son. I'll bet the blacksmith or cutler who made that got a special treat out of making in modern times as an original blacksmith/cutler would have enjoyed it as something different, then.
Gus.
-
I've been a HC reproduction 17th & 18th century house hardware smith for over 40 years. I absolutely love my work. But that has nothing to do with holding boredom at bay.
For all intents and purposes my work is performed just as it was during the period , other than an electric forge blower and lights.When the building season is hot in the summer months I can find it hard to go in knowing my week is going to consist of forging and filing 50 or 60 been latches by weeks end only to start the next week making the h&l hinges to go with them. Presumably not much different than for a period smith.
Boredom isn't a new word it's origin is assumed circa 1850 prior to that the word used probably would have been Tedium and in a way seems to fit what we're speaking of better.
Time place or period doesn't circumvent the tedium one feels from the seemingly mindless mass production of hand made items or tasks. As a matter of fact one of the still more contemporary tasks that I know would drive me crazy would be being a brick layer.
The one advantage I've always felt I had over the period smith is that I have the fun and intrigue of researching construction methods and period correctness of my work. For the period smith this distraction didn't exist. His work consisted of performing taught and known methods. His divergence from these methods was his creativity and his escape from tedium. This could partly explain why some known gunsmiths work changed in style over their life time. The difference between those whose work changed and those whose didn't might tell us something about who these makers were as people.
It always seems so to easy for us to fall into the trap of our own myths. It's human nature to want to escape
it seems, our escape is to dream of a prior time when life was simpler. This is the myth it wasn't simpler it was just different. What are we trying to escape from anyway......Tedium? :)
-
It always seems so to easy for us to fall into the trap of our own myths.
If we read history, and absorb the lessons available to us, you'd assume we'd learn. We are such creatures of the moment.
By tedium we come to appreciate the unusual and special events in our lives.
-
Some find comfort being stuck in a 'rote', while others use their imagination to escape, which can lead to innovation and invention. We are all the same, yet wired differently. Like I use to tell my kids, sometimes its not about how much fire wood you stack, more, what you think about while doing it.
Robby
-
I learned at an early age never to be bored. My Father's cure for boredom was to find more work for me to do, so I soon learned never to be bored. I often told my children only boring people can become bored. Use the creative mind God gave you to always find new ways to do things and even when tedium sets in your mind can escape by thinking on different things.
I have always liked the fact that my work takes me to different places and different tasks continually. While it isn't my dream job I still feel blessed I don't have to sit in the same office cubicle and stare at the same computer screen for 8 hours a day. To me that would be torture.
-
Name 5 gunmakers who are famous for copying other pepoles work. Now name 5 gunmakers who are famous for creating their own style.
Some in the last category are Manton. Twigg, Melchoir Fortney, Boutet, J.P.Beck.
It is the same in every field. All the copiers are soon forgotten.
There is another way of looking at the subject. Forget fame or artistic creation.
Some people are so fascinated with the objects of the past and so fascinated at the ability of those craftsmen of 200 or 300 years ago that they must test themselves to determine if they also might be able to do the same with the same tools. Others probably just want one of those objects but the only way they can is to copy one.
Whatever the case may be I can not see why there needs to be a conflict between the motives. I think all are to be admired. It seems to me to be a contest for attention between some.
As for myself I am in a contest with myself. I can't stand boredom and I must determine if I can do something more difficult and beautiful on each project. Guns are sort of my canvas.
When I started out I fell into the type that just wanted one of those longrifles but couldn't afford one. Later on I had to see if I could build one the way the old gunsmiths did. That lasted for about 20 years and Then I got bored with it. Look At Guslers latest work and you can see a lot of the same progression, Judson Brennen also
-
By trying to duplicate an original a good deal can be learned about how the original builder went about doing his business. Try as hard as you may you can never truely duplicate an original anything. I was truely amazed at how much I learned about the firearm building process by doing this. Do I want to make a steady diet of this "NO". We should all strive to be individual artist as others have pointed out very well.
As far as the aging of a firearm goes, to me this is just another type of finishing process. Browning, rust blue, fire blue, in the white, scraped finish, 600 grit sandpaper, high gloss, soft luster, BLO, No BLO, Aged, not Aged.
I do as the customer request and I am sure that the old masters did the same. A lot of people today do not want to wait 5, 10 or 20 years to have that nice, warm well used look. So if that is what they want then that is what I am going to try to give to them. If they want shinny as a new penny then that is what they are going to get.
I built a pair of rifles for a husband and wife that they hunted with. These rifles were were the only rifles they used. I had a chance to visit this couple 4 years latter. In that time the rifles had obtained that nice look of well used but not abused look. Most people want that look but very few today will invest the time to obtain it.
-
I would never spend my time trying to reproduce any one's work simply because it sounds like a lot less fun than trying to get what is in my own imagination into my own two hands. Also I think it would be EXTREMELY sad and a loss to all involved if we restricted the uber talented builders of today and in the future to copying works that have already been done. That being said I think there is room for both points of view as I'm sure much is learned about the originals from the folks who strive to reproduce every detail. I believe it is the people of a likewise mindset who painfully document the history, builders, and original firearms themselves which I love to read about and believe is so important.
To the issue of adding "age" to a piece. I do disagree that it is a fad as I don't think it will ever "go out of style". There will always be a great number of people who like a distressed look. I honestly don't know that I have a preference and I am certain both "aged" and "new" will find their way into my armory. When I look at a piece I either like it or I don't. Correctness of one kind or another really doesn't creep in to the thought process for me. Craftsmanship, design, wood to metal fit and finish, quality components,...etc,...etc,...is what forms my affinity for a given item.
All of this is coming from someone who has yet to start his journey on rifle building and has completed only 1 horn so my $0.02 probably doesn't amount to much but these are my thoughts on the subject.
-Aaron
-
I have a rifle here that is 30 years old been hunted with, been out in the snow. It has no "warm used look". It still looks pretty darned new actually, it DOES have some dents.
But warm and worn? Not so much.
I know other rifles with more use that really don't look that worn, unless the OWNER aged them. So this is, unless the owner does not take proper care of his firearms, by and large la-la land stuff that results in a gun that looks like its 100 or more years old when they would really be 1 or 3 or 5 or 10 if the user is using a 1770s period rifle and pretending to be in the 1770s for example. But it looks cool and thats all that matters I guess.
Does anyone here REALLY believe the Haymaker rifle looked as it does today when it owner was killed in Kentucky? The rifle was used for a long time AFTER it was brought back could easily have seen combat in the the Revolution. Then was surely knocked around in storage and/or played with by kids (the lock possibly removed so they could not fire it and was lost or disposed of).
But its more fun to make up stories.
If people want it fine, who really cares. Its the delusional thinking that irks me.
Dan
-
Its the delusional thinking that irks me.
Dan
Dan, it's your insistence on my 'delusional thinking' that I find offensive.
I have no illusions when I'm making my gun art. You don't have to like what I make, you don't have to agree with my vision, but I ask you to respect my position, just as I respect yours.
-
Its the delusional thinking that irks me.
Dan
Dan, it's your insistence on my 'delusional thinking' that I find offensive.
I have no illusions when I'm making my gun art. You don't have to like what I make, you don't have to agree with my vision, but I ask you to respect my position, just as I respect yours.
Look. I do not remember mentioning your name. If I want to tell someone something I know how to do it and there will be no doubt.
What else is it when people try to recreate an era with a gun that looks like it would 100 or 200 years AFTER that era? Its not necessarily the MAKER, its the end USER that demonstrates a lack of understanding.
What is the word then? Ignorance?
Everyone wants to pretend things, they want to look the look but have no stomach to walk the walk. That is actual work afterall. They think that the way a gun looks NOW is how it looked when it was new of 3-10 years old. ITS DELUSIONAL to think this. I don't know another name, fantasy maybe, its certainly not real. YOU surely know this or certainly should. Rifles were VERY expensive and people did not willingly abuse them. A man could work a year or more for the price. And near as I can tell they used GUN COVERS.
The problem with this site is that its IMPOSSIBLE to make a point and explain a position or an idea outside the eastern clique's approved way of thinking or doing things without someone with a vested interest getting their panties wadded. Even if its based on written documentation from the PEOPLE originally involved. This is not proof since THEY are selling something else that is not compatible with the historical record. So the historical record is wrong??? I don't see it that way.
So while faking guns and powder horns and who knows what else and SELLING THEM as real is apparently OK or at least ignored, and don't bother telling me nobody here does it I have seen the proof on gun broker, but saying "this gun does not fit the era because its been over aged" "offends" people?
If this offends you then perhaps YOU have a problem. There are other people that see it as truth as well. But most won't even post here because they see it as a bunch of wannabes who OBVIOUSLY do not, for the most part, actually USE the guns. This is obvious from the POSTS. So these people who in some cases have an immense knowledge of actually using a FL in REMOTE areas for WEEKS or MONTHS on end hunting and other work like horse packing won't bother seeing it as a waste of time since some keyboard expert will take offense. People here who apparently hunt in ground blinds and tree stands in some 40 acre wood lot try to lecture me on how to take care of my rifle and equipment where I live where some years I cover 50+ miles ON FOOT and hundreds in the pickup (100 miles in a day is not unusual and I may not get out of the county) while deer hunting. Ever knee walk through 12-18" of snow for 100 yards or so trying to stay low enough the game can't see you and keep the FL "dry".
I have actually carried MLs horse back and even had a pretty good horse wreak in a BEAVER POND and been bucked off as well. The gun may well stay in a "loop" even if the rider "gets off" BTW. Not good if the horse is not caught. Many people in the AMM do similar things as well.
I trapped Beaver all one year with no waterproof boots just to get an idea of what it was like. I paid for all the bills for my first child with BEAVER. While I live in the west, an area the CLA for example loves to ignore so I did not renew this year, I HAVE done things. I don't make guns then age them so they do not really look like used guns but people will THINK they do.
I make stuff in my own limited way and often use them if they are not sold. I have killed deer and antelope with ML pistols at tree stand ranges without the tree stand. Lots of stuff. But if I say aging is not done properly or that its wannabeism (its like some jerk arriving at a SF convention with a shirt with patches sewn on upside down) I am some sort of jerk even though its true and irrefutable. I have shot and built ML rifles since the late 1960s. I have opinions based on that. I generally keep the "worst" of it to myself. But sometimes things have to be said if this place is going to be anything but a bunch of people enthusiastically patting each other on the back for doing work that rates from outstanding by any standard to little more than malformed junk. But I don't tell people its malformed junk because its not polite. Besides someone on the "blog" would be "offended".
I try to help people. I try to post valid information on ballistics, powder charges and effectiveness. I try to post valid research. Some of these things may not suit everyone here. People that never hunt or shoot don't need ballistics and such. Some research and experiences may gore sacred cows, I cannot help that. And I learn a lot here but if I cannot voice a VALID opinion on subject then this site is not what it should be. If someone REALLY wants to accurately re-enact some period like 1777 is it OK for him to pack around a gun that dates 1775-1780 that looks like it has 200 years of use and abuse? Or should someone make it know that excessively aged guns would be out of place in the context of time. He would be more accurate with a rifle with just a little wear that was broken through the wrist and then repaired. But people can't say "it's excessively aged" because someone promotes and sells excessively aged guns? So the re-enactor looks foolish in costume to anyone who understands how guns actually wear in USE over a limited time frame. Now if the rifle (or two or three) is lost in a creek for 3-4 days it may look really bad when its recovered, or so I was told by someone who saw such a thing back in the 60s.
Some people here would go apoplectic if they were to sit in with a master gunmaker I know when he views one of the picture CDs the CLA sells on a big screen TV. He has a marvelous eye for line and a photographic memory of rifles he has handled over the decades and can pick out a error in my shaping as soon as I get in his door. But he would be very unpopular if he had a computer and posted here.
If Dickert, Beck, Armstrong or Hawk did not make aged guns why should I? I don't and will not. Why should someone WANT one? Its not real. But its "cool". Or maybe "far out solid and power to the people".
I used to do work for people that paid a lot of money for my work at retail. But they were not "re-enactors" they were shooters and collectors. Had I aged a gun, beat up the stock and screwed up the metal the guy that paid me and the guy that placed the order would have had a fit and there would be "issues". They had to be perfect. I worked in the real world and still do. I spent too much time making things that nobody could find fault with, spending a lot of time looking at old guns to refine the lines etc etc. Make a rifle then butcher up my work because someone with a substitute reality thinks its "cool"? I just cannot do it.
The only rifles I ever aged were the ones I did for "Quigley" and this was expanded on after they left the plant. I made them look like a rifle would look after a little use. Since I had used a number of them when new, but this was not enough to the Hollywood make believe director and/or the camera.
Dan
-
When we talk about what is real and what is not in the creation and use of the longrifle, it extends beyond "aging" of the material goods. It is play-time to me when people create scenarios that you deem as "real". I cannot see how your scenarios are more real. They are just as made up as everyone else's. It's a choice to hunt with a flintlock in "real" wilderness, like playing a game trying to prove you are tougher than everyone else. It's play-acting "mountain man", nothing else. It's not impressive to everyone, and that doesn't seem to be OK with you. The whole breast-beating, "Whaaaah! I am a REAL mountain man! No pig farmer here!" is so 1970s Buckskin Report. Lots has happened since then. The work and art has progressed a lot. Shinin times, but cheesy in retrospect to many of us.
I've got news. It's all play time. None of us are in the 18th century. We, to varying degrees and in selective areas, create sets that in our minds, have great appeal. It's completely selective. You're happy to electric or torch weld and use a modern lathe while bawling about being "real" because of the way you hunt. Others choose different areas in which to emulate our forefathers. But most of us aren't screaming and ranting that we have THE answer and everybody that doesn't follow our groove is a poseur.
BTW, when you rant about how aging is a form of deceit, did you ever respond to why you think it's OK to use a lock engraved "Manton" on one of your guns? It seems to take a lot of steam out of your argument that you have the high ground.
-
I've got a question about this aging thing. Maybe I am missing your point Dan, but I think you are saying that a 5 or 10 year old gun actually looked pretty good after its active use, and the nasty pitting and damage that we so commonly see on them now occurred after it's active life was over and it had been "retired".
If that is true, then why are the breech ends of the barrels on these guns so much more badly pitted than the rest of the barrel. If most of the damage we see on these antiques occurred AFTER the gun had been retired (put away while still looking pretty good, according to your theory) then the pitting should be even along the barrel. Clearly that is not the case on lots of originals. The only explanation for this that fits your theory is that the gun was in good shape up till its last active day, and then never cleaned and oiled after its last shot was fired. This is hard to square with the idea that they were as well cared for as you say while in active use. A guy who religiously kept his gun in top shape, then all of a sudden decided to put it up the last time without a thorough cleaning? That might explain the breech area being so beat up, but it makes no sense.
Logically, I can only conclude that much of that pitting around the lock/breech area, evident wear and dings at the wrists, butt plates, and forearms, must have occurred while the gun was being fired and handled regularly. Did some additional damage occur after the gun had been retired? Absolutely so, but I can see no other explanation for the unequal distribution of damage/wear on these guns if most of it happened after they had been put away and were no longer being carried and fired. That just doesn't make any sense to me. If this damage happened while they sat in a corner or a closet, the damage/ravages of decades of no care, would be pretty consistent along the entire gun. Those breeches MUST have been rusted and pitted by the corrosive effects of burned powder WHILE the gun was being actively used. There is no other logical explanation.
Why would the screws on so many originals be all boogered up if that only happened after the gun was retired? Folks took them in and out for fun after they had started using a different gun?
Yes, you, and many others, go out and use these guns for hundreds of hours outside under very harsh conditions. But, then you go home, clean it, oil it, and keep it in your climate controlled home until it is used again. That is just a tad different life than many of the guns used in the time period we are discussing lived.
-
No, Dan, I'm not trying to egg you on, I just said that I was offended by the 'delusional' term. I know you didn't mean me personally, but I age guns, others age guns, so I am in the same basket as all the other gun agers. I also appreciate that you help a lot of folks here, don't get me wrong, there ain't enough of that to go around.
-
;D I age guns ;D
-
I find myself curious about peoples expectations. If a man bought a new gun in the late 18th century, for how long would he expect it to last him?
I realise that this may just reflect modern attitudes, but were there any journal entries along the lines of "bought a new gun - that's me sorted for a couple of years / the lad will be glad of it one day..."
If you look around today, there are people who take no care for their tools and equipment and others for whom no job is complete until everything has been cleaned and stowed in its place. This obviously affects the appearance of their kit, and quite quickly.
I suspect things have always been this way, so that if you went in to a settlement and mustered every man with a gun you would see quite a range of conditions.
I'm not really fond of "the brand new look" myself. I just like the softer sheen and slight wear on corners that suggest that something has been used and cared for and I see nothing wrong with making things that way, whether its a gun or a chair. Its nothing more than a matured finish, when all's said and done.
Going much beyond that seems a strange thing to do, although I can admire the skill and effort sometimes invested in a serious forgery! ;D
-
Wow, this topic has more fire in it that a discussion of "canoe" guns! As for me, I like the look of a well done "aged" gun. I don't reenact so the point some people make that "it's not historically correct" doesn't hold water for me. It is just part of an aesthetic that appeals to me. Now, when it's poorly done with a heavy hand I'm not a fan just as I'm not a fan of a poorly built gun.
-
Suppose I have an 18th Century house I've restored to look like it's got 200 years of wear and tear. Soft edges on the door openings, floors worn to a soft warm color. I won't put a brand new looking gun over the fireplace. Rather, I'd want a gun with a worn and lovingly cared for look. Maybe there are repairs, some wood loss along the barrel channel. The wood and metal show wear and polish from years of handling, developing color and tone all on their own.
Is this wrong?
-
Is this wrong?
No ones opinion is wrong even Dan's , everyone is entitled to make and enjoy what they like.What is wrong is labeling people with derogatory labels(frauds, fakers ,posers ,delusional ,wanna bees)because they make or admire aged guns or you disagree with them.
As for the notion that gunmakers west of the Mississippi don't get their just due all I can say is quality is always recognized.Many makers west of the Mississippi(Jud Brennan,Jack Brooks,Mike Brooks,Jerry Huddleston,Dave Rase ,Ron Scott, D. Taylor Sapergia to name just a few )seem to have no problem getting their work recognized.
-
If we consider ourselves to be gun builders, then perhaps we should make only new guns. After all, no manufacturer in their right mind makes used products. But if we consider ourselves to be artists, then the only real limit is our own personal muse. Then, as artists, we can critique our work. Is it well done? Is it convincing? Does the artificial ageing contribute to the artwork, or does it detract from it?
Personally, I like new guns, I like used guns and I like antiques. I particularly like Kettenburg's fakes, as he likes to call them. Those guns are high art, in my opinion. But like all high art, it's not easy to do.
The observation I have on the ageing of guns as I see it on this site, is that most of the ageing doesn't look natural to me. Most of the aged guns are about as convincing as the “aged” brass lights you can find in any furniture store.
If you really want your gun to have a convincing all natural 5 to 10 year old look, just lend it to me for a hunting season. For some reason, guns and women seem to age rapidly in my hands. I can make you a fine antique finish too, it just takes another year or so.
-
I tend to like to do a "slightly used" finish, which everyone else seems to like, and which the gun would naturally end up with fairly quickly anyway. I like to do them this way mostly because I'm clumsy, and I find it VERY difficult to make a gun really look brand new! :D
-
I find myself curious about peoples expectations. If a man bought a new gun in the late 18th century, for how long would he expect it to last him?
I realise that this may just reflect modern attitudes, but were there any journal entries along the lines of "bought a new gun - that's me sorted for a couple of years / the lad will be glad of it one day..."
If you look around today, there are people who take no care for their tools and equipment and others for whom no job is complete until everything has been cleaned and stowed in its place. This obviously affects the appearance of their kit, and quite quickly.
I suspect things have always been this way, so that if you went in to a settlement and mustered every man with a gun you would see quite a range of conditions.
There is the old joke about the guy who proudly shows off his family heirloom and proclaims, "THIS is the gun my Great Greats Grand Daddy carried during the Revolution. Sure it has had one new lock, two new barrels and three new stocks BUT it is the same gun......"
How long a gun lasted was entirely up to how hard it was used and/or abused. Frontier guns got used and sometimes abused a lot more than guns in the more settled regions. Yet, it is not uncommon to find Longrifles that were originally flintlock and later converted to percussion. So a Longrifle could have been used for decades.
In one of my "UnCivil War" era books, there is Virginia Longrifle that was somewhat crudely "percussioned" and used in "The Third War of the American Revolution" after it had been used originally in "The First War of the American Revolution" by an ancestor in that family. (The "War of 1812" is a more modern term and was often called "The Second War of the American Revolution" at the time - so the UnCivil War during the period was sometimes called ""The Third War of the American Revolution") I am going to have to go through my books and see what book it is in and hope it wasn't in a pile of books I loaned and did not get back.
In the 18th century, the British Army figured the service life of a Musket was 10- 12 years. This from Bailey and some original sources. If one looks at how "The King's Firelock" was expected to be kept according to Cuthbertson, perhaps a good deal of that wear came from the daily cleaning and polishing regimen.
Original accounts of 18th century Virginia Militia tell us that some members were fined for not only not having the minimum required arms and equipment, but also some Militia Members were fined for not keeping their arms "in good order" or what we might call properly cleaned and oiled. I doubt they meant as well kept as the British Army, but I do wonder what was considered "acceptable" as there doesn't seem to have been written instructions or regulations to go by. Hence, it was left up to the Officers at the Musters.
Some militia members were fined for having cobwebs or even mud daubers nests in their barrels. However, the one I find the funniest was the Militia Member fined for having corn in his barrel. Was this parched corn the Militiaman intended as a meal or meals during the muster? Perhaps the Miltiaman's child or children "loaded" the gun with corn to play some time before the muster and he did not realize it. How did the Inspecting Officer or NCO figure out there was corn in the barrel? Was it FULL of corn or did corn fall out when the barrel was pointed muzzle down? I can visualize a period Sergeant doing the inspection and finding the corn in the barrel and commenting something like, "Jones, is that your LUNCH in the barrel of your firelock?!!" or "Smith, are you trying a new way to parch (or pop) corn by firing it in your firelock?!!" Perhaps the militiaman was the 18th century equivalent of Gomer Pyle or just a victim of circumstance? At least it seems they did not record the Militiaman's name and thus his many times Great Grandchildren don't have to be embarrassed about it.
Now most likely the ones fined for such things were not those whose lives depended on their firelocks. It seems like the ones fined were probably townsfolk who rarely shot their firelocks, particularly the firelocks with wasp nests in them. GRIN.
Gus
-
I have read through numerous journal entries from the shop of John and Caleb Vincent.
If their shop was "typical" of many gunsmiths it appears they "restocked" about three rifles for each one that they "built new".
In fact, there is no evidence that John Vincent did anything but "repair" rifles from about 1860 until his death in 1882. And while there is no specific notes I also wonder how many flint rifles they converted to percussion (??) because the owner saw that as an "upgrade" to their "old rifle" - no different than the way that CF shooters adopted scopes over open sights when it became affordable/available to the average hunter.
That may give some insight into how rifles were treated/regarded.
They were most probably looked at like many of us see our vehicles. While some have to have a new one every couple of years many probably keep it running until it's ready for the junk yard, totally beyond repair.
So a restock may have been the way we would consider putting on a new set of tires, or replacing the transmission to "keep her running" for a few more years.
And it's certainly likely, that the best examples today of original rifles WERE the ones that were bought, used "rarely" and lived over the mantle or in a corner behind a door just in case "some varmint" got into the back field and needed to be discouraged.
I prefer a "new looking" rifle. It will age on it's own and develop it's own "battle scars" as I use it. But that is my preference. I want it to look like it would have come out the shop where it was built. I don't want an "antique".
Which ever way you "like it/want it", you only have to please yourself - and unless you are trying to hold it out as a "genuine" antique, then there is no harm done.
-
Gus: Had the same problem with Grandad's axe ;D
That may give some insight into how rifles were treated/regarded.
They were most probably looked at like many of us see our vehicles. While some have to have a new one every couple of years many probably keep it running until it's ready for the junk yard, totally beyond repair.
I think it does give me an insight. Thank you. I need to remember that built in obsolescence and micro managing by accountants are modern problems :)
-
Getting back to creativity--and boredom. I would venture that most if not all of you who practice the craft of gun making work alone, probably in a shop in or next to your home. How much like that was 18th century American gun making? Did the named makers we think of so readily from colonial and golden age times do every operation on every gun that left their shop, working entirely solo? Did they have apprentices and journeyman craftsmen who worked for them?
I know that was commonly the case with the European guild system. I imagine there were men who labored many hours doing pretty tedious work, even in the new world, and the luxury of working alone and doing all the tasks of building a gun is a less common and more contemporary way of doing things.
What can anyone tell us?