AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Lucky R A on October 27, 2014, 12:15:48 AM
-
Over the years a number of members have expressed a desire to build a Bucks Co. rifle with a wooden patchbox. I have frequently responded that I have never seen an original wooden box Bucks Co. gun. I further checked this out with Eric Armstrong and a few others, and there seemed to be no wooden box guns with the classic Bucks Co. features. Last year my KRA sponsor turned up a gun that had been collected and stored away for many years. When he sent me the initial photos, it became evident that this gun was one of the progenitors of the classic Bucks Co. style...and it had a wooden box. I immediately made arrangements to examine and measure the gun. I copied the outline of the gun and took all the measurements that would allow me to replicate it. The gun is unsigned, but carries its original lock that had been percussed. It has a 46" 60 cal. O/R smoothbore barrel. The barrel appears to have been shortened by about 2" when the gun was percussed. The forestock has been shortened and a pewter nose cap has been installed. The butt plate is 4-3/4" tall and 2-1/8" wide with a thumbnail final. The trigger guard was 9" long with thumbnail finals on each end. The gun has an elongated entry thimble again ending in a thumbnail final. The forestock moldings are very similar to that found on many classic Bucks Co. rifles.
In August I had everything in place to start replicating the gun as shown here. I used a 60 cal. full octagon barrel that I bought from Roger Sells, a member here. The barrel is 48" long and was nearly perfect for the build. I toyed with the idea of trying to turn the octagon barrel half round, but chickened out. I found that a Chambers Early Ketland lock was nearly a duplicate for the original lock. A Reaves Gohring trigger guard stretched by nearly an inch duplicated the original guard. I duplicated the original style carvings to the best of my abilities. The original box lid was missing, so I had to replicate it from the evidences found on the original stock. The design features are pure conjecture. I hope that sometime I will be able to post photos of the original when it is fully restored.
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110655.jpg) (https://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110655.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110658.jpg) (https://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110658.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110630.jpg) (https://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110630.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110640.jpg) (https://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110640.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110637.jpg) (https://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110637.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110639.jpg) (https://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110639.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110645.jpg) (http://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110645.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110644.jpg) (http://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110644.jpg.html)
(https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g242/luckenbill/P1110650.jpg) (https://s58.photobucket.com/user/luckenbill/media/P1110650.jpg.html)
-
Thanks for the info and pics of your BC LR. From the particulars of the original and it's very wide Bplate w/ a flat shaped shoe along w/ the normal features of a BC, it would seem that BC LRs were built earlier than previously thought. But this might not be true either....a .60 cal. recoils quite a bit, so perhaps the Bplate is in response to the recoil? But then there's the wooden Bpox which would date this BC earlier than what is thought.
Anyways, to my uneducated eye, your BC LR's buttstock does have the appearance of being early. You do exquisite work which is unobtainable by many of us.
Kinda like the thumbnailed entry pipe....different than what is on most BC LRs.
Am waiting for the more knowledgeable members familiar w/ BCs to chime in. This could get very interesting and educational. Thanks again for posting your pics and supplying the info asre the original. Also any conjecture as to the original builder?....Fred
-
Hi Ron,
That is a fabulous rifle. I love the architecture and cannot help but wonder how old the original was. Your workmanship is superb. I love the carving and the patchbox. Boy that early Ketland lock sure fits that gun. What a great piece. Thanks for the photos.
dave
-
Outstanding rifle Mr Lucky! Is this the missing link?? I see the Bucks characteristics, but a little bigger than what we normally consider classic. I like it!
-
I am in awe. :)
-
You did a great job on the reproduction, Ron! Thank you for posting the information as well as the pictures.
-
VERY nice metal ageing.....booger the screw heads some to complete the look is my only thought.....
Did you use a Clorox wash or what on the metal?
Marc n tomtom
-
Ron, Thanks for sharing your work and the story behind it. Lots of lehigh features are present on this gun as well as signature Bucks details. The carving really stands out as well done. I'm curious is carving on the original as well done as yours is ? Would you speculate on a date for the original ? 1780s or early 90s ?
-
A gun with a buttplate that wide seems likely to be 1770s. That fits with the lock as well. The "Bucks County" features I see are the finial on the buttplate, the ends of the guard, the elongated entry thimble, and some of the carving on the patchbox side. I lean a little bit away from it being an Antes gun, because I would expect a curved lower buttstock profile at this date, and the carving is more like RCA 59 than his. The carving also reminds me of that on an early rifle with Bucks County features highlighted in Shumway's July 1996 Muzzle Blasts article, "A Case of Lehigh Valley Longrifle Evolution".
What specific features of this rifle reminds you of particular early rifles or later, "classic" Bucks County rifles?
-
Wow Ron, I didn't realize you were building this for me! ;D Seriously, that is a fantastic rendition of the original. Someone is going to be very happy.
-
I'll offer a couple thoughts:
The molding along the forestock is classic Bucks County but then again Neihard used it also most likely prior to the Bucks County guns sort of splitting off from what was being developed in the Lehigh Valley.
The tang carving with the perpendicular band was used by Herman Rupp and I've seen it before also.
Georger Weiker ( RCA 62 ) used a side plate with the button at the end and also an elongated entry pipe ending in a similiar fashion albeit a longer one than this gun has. Buttplate width is 1 7/8 . He was born in 1769 so probably not on his own before late 1780s. He was certainly around to see the Bucks County school emerge.
The really fine cheek side carving intrigues me ( It's why I asked Ron if the original is this fine ). For comparison ,I think it flows much like the unattributed smoothbore rifle in the Moravian book. However did this was well trained.
-
Ron thank you for sharing this superb build with us. It is exciting for me to see "outside the norm builds" and this rifle definitely is not the standard pre-carved kit build. Great job.
-
For those of you that have the KRA Lehigh CD, take a look at the Cheek side carving on Early Lehigh #8. Especialy the upper C scroll and wavy incised lines. The box side carving design is almost exact and a thumbnail butt plate tang to boot.
Same 2 chip cuts on the underside of the lock and side panel moldings.
-
Nice job!
The butt carving and a couple other areas remind me of Jacob Dubbs. But I've only seen two of his guns, both attributed, both needing restoration...
John
-
I know very little about Buckaroo Co. guns, but I like this. very fine piece of art work. Looks like something I would build....I don't know if that's good or bad. ;)
-
I think that would be good Mike. Lucky, that is a beautiful gun in any county, thanks for posting it!!!!!
Robby
-
John: Did you mean "Jacob Dubbs" or "Jacob Daub"? Daub worked in northern Montgomery County and produced rifles with details that are attributed to the "Bucks" school. He definitely was part of the Verner, Shuler, and Weicker gang.
There is something in the "soft" line of the comb on Ron's copy that reminds me of Daub's work.
-
John: Did you mean "Jacob Dubbs" or "Jacob Daub"? Daub worked in northern Montgomery County and produced rifles with details that are attributed to the "Bucks" school. He definitely was part of the Verner, Shuler, and Weicker gang.
There is something in the "soft" line of the comb on Ron's copy that reminds me of Daub's work.
Brookville,
Jacob Dubbs. Northampton Co. Died 1775 or so. I have a few pictures on this computer someplace of a rifle attributed to him. Attributed, not signed,,, The rifle didn't have near as much comb as Ron's rifle.
I wondering if Ron saw the original to his effort at the last KRA show?
John
-
Thanks so much for all the nice comments on the gun. I think this gun has a lot to teach us about the lower Lehigh, Montgomery, and Bucks Co. area gun makers. I will try to answer some of your questions and give my impressions, so that we may all more fully understand this area of early gun making.
The general consensus is that this is a Rev. War or slightly earlier piece
The gun shows some Lehigh Co. characteristics, especially the tang carving. I have seen a very similar tang carvings on much later Classic Bucks Co. rifles, so this is not uncommon to find a mix of details on early or later guns.
The carving behind the cheekpiece is taken directly from the original in detail and style as nearly as possible. I feel that this carving also has a flavor of Lehigh Co. When I showed the photos of the original to Eric Kettenburg, he threw out the name Johannes Moll an early Lehigh Co. maker as the possible maker. I will try to get permission to post a photo of the original cheekpiece carving.
The Fleur de-lis finals of the lock moldings are in the classic Bucks Co. style. The forestock moldings end in the classic Bucks Co. termination. The gun has an embryonic extended entry pipe. Rounded thumbnail finals on the hardware and a myriad of carving details found on other later Bucks Co. rifles seem to make a pretty convincing body of evidence for a progenitor of the classic Bucks Co. style rifle.
There are a couple of rifles that seem to be "sister" rifles to this rifle; one is in Canada and the other in the U.S. At some point it would be interesting to get them together, possibly at a KRA show where they can be photographed, shared, and studied.
I hope to have this rifle at Lewisburg this February; if you can make the show, stop by and chat.
Best wishes
Ron
-
So how does it handle? I imagine a 48" full length Octagon even a 60 cal. would be a bit nose heavy and awkward to handle. It is a nice rifle though.
-
James,
Amazingly, the rifle handles rather well. The barrel built by Ed Rayl is swamped in an early profile. The bulk of the butt stock counterbalances the rather long barrel. The forestock and wood is pretty darn close to the barrel. It is not as nice and handy as a 42 inch B weight that comes in at about 7-1/4 lbs. The total weight of this gun on the scales is just over 9lbs. The architecture allows it to hold well without strain, just a bit more weight. When I sighted it in, I tried a group with 90 gr. of 2-f and it was very comfortable to shoot. I shot several shots offhand and was able to make very good hits, and I am used to shooting a D/S trigger. The M-14 I used to carry (long, long ago) weighed more than this rifle.
Ron
-
That rifle has buckets of personality. I too love the architecture. Thanks for posting the pictures and information.
-
That's nice, So what are the specs on the swamp?, in your first post you said it was a "straight" 48" inch Octagon, and I reckon having a .60 hole down the middle helps a bit and the little extra weight tames the recoil some. We need a picture of it out deer hunting and between the rack of a nice 8 pointer.
-
Ron asked me to post this image of the cheekpiece carving on the original gun
-
That is a Beautiful piece of work. The stain/aged look achieved is fantastic.
-
Here's one of the pictures I have of a similar gun at auction some time ago. Obviously not exact, but I think a good deal of similarity. The cheek piece design looks similar too.
John
(https://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u227/arljtr/P1010006a_zps070ed730.jpg)
-
Compare the upper C scroll detail on this one with Lucky RA's original. Wavy trailing incised lines also. Lots of other very similar details.
Black and white photo is KRA CD Early Lehigh #8. Color photo is original that Lucky RA copied.
KRA #8 ( unsigned ) is a grand gun ( they both are ). Lehigh and Bucks early details. I suspect a single maker made these both. My guess he was european trained. But who was he ?
(https://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn258/TomCurrie8758/lehighevolutionpage6cropped.jpg)
(https://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn258/TomCurrie8758/P11006365_zpseb7d35a4.jpg)
-
Same hand or shop. I like the carving in the lower one more. It seems to flow better. Interesting how the cheek piece really does not have a sharp transition to the buttstock.
-
That's cause it aged naturally. ;). Mark
-
Very beautifully done, Ron! You have created a wonderful rifle here. And what a treat it must have been to have been to handle, study and measure the original! We are so fortunate that you have posted the rifle to share it with us!
Curtis
-
Ron,
In planning for my next Bucks County rifle I'm looking at hooked breeches. Did the original of the beautiful early Bucks County rifle you just built have a hooked breech like the Bucks County rifles shown in RCA or did that feature come along later? Thanks.
Mole Eyes
-
This rifle has a fixed breech. The only original Bucks Co. rifle that I have encountered with a hooked breech is the grand Verner rifle. Hooked breeches are rather unusual for this school.
Ron
-
This rifle has a fixed breech. The only original Bucks Co. rifle that I have encountered with a hooked breech is the grand Verner rifle. Hooked breeches are rather unusual for this school.
Ron
Thanks, Ron. That helps me plan that next rifle a little better.
Mole Eyes
-
I don't see the point in a hooked breech for a rifle of this period. Although many of the Bucks guns from Shuler, et. al. used headed flat pins to mount the barrel I have never seen an example of these pins, or round pins, being used with escutcheons.
If your idea is to be able to remove the barrel for cleaning you will soon end up with some pretty loose fits. Adding the escutcheons would help but you would then be out of "school".
Personally, I have never found the task of cleaning a longrifle burdensome enough to warrant disassembling the barrel.
You apparently read something into my post that I didn't write and made an assumption, rarely a good idea. No mention of cleaning a long rifle was made; read it again and you'll see that.
Andrew Verner apparently didn't share your view of hooked breeches on rifles of this period on at least one of his rifles (reference RCA No. 63 or page 40 of Hansen's "An Intimate Look at The American Longrifle, It's Art and Evolution). This is why I asked the question of Ron about rifles earlier than No. 63. The point was to determine if they were common or documented on earlier Bucks County rifles, which Ron answered.
Mole Eyes
-
Very nice piece Ron!!!
-
I just got a link to this thread and now I feel like I missed all the fun at the party. :-[
First off very nice build, I think it looks fantastic! WEre you the one that sent me all the pics of the original? I knew I had seen that somewhere, found the pics but I don;t remember who sent them to me.
Bucks Co. presents a lot of problems, first and foremost because so many of the early records were lost in a fire (I believe it was a fire). Furthermore there is the issue of the "assumed" blending together of Bucks Co. and Montgomery Co. when one speaks of Bucks Co.
KRA#8 as it's being called is absolutely magnificent. Nobody yet seems to be able to identify who this guy was but it seems to be "assumed" at this point that he was working somewhere in upper Bucks or upper Montgomery, many of us believe somewhere up in the "point" where Montgomery/Bucks/Berks/Northampton (now Lehigh) all come together. When this gun turned up a number of years ago, 1980s, the box was missing and it had a different lock on it (or maybe the same lock without the slash marks on the tail). Bruce M. sent me his pics of when he was still making the replacement box and with the original lock, although I've never gotten a clear explanation of what the deal with the lock was. Anyway, the guy who carved it and stocked it clearly knew his business. The "Ron rifle" here in this thread would also appear to be the same guy. The immediate speculation would be that he was an immigrant or Euro trained, although one only has to look at the Isaac Berlin work to sow some doubt there. George Shumway did the article for MB in the early 90s about KRA#8 and tried to link it to two other Bucks Co. unsigned pieces, later pieces who he believed were the same guy, but I personally have my doubts. Maybe influenced, although who knows - when you view much of the later Bucks work in its entirety, it's pretty obvious that all of those guys were eating out of the same cook pot. Some believe this earlier guy was some form of Yoda-like master up there in the upper Perkiomen area that taught all of the later Bucks guys. Maybe? Again, because there are such scant pre-Federal era records and no real hard paper trail of gunsmiths in these areas, it's currently impossible to say.
In addition to #8 and the Ron gun here, there is one other that seems pretty clearly by the same guy that turned up @6-8 years ago but needed a lot of restoration work. I don;t know if it has since been restored and I haven't seen it since, but it was pretty darn identical to #8 but with plainer furnishings. There is also another that has the same early stock architecture (almost identical to #8) but with sparser, incised carving that seems a little later; its also been buggered a bit i.e. some replacement furnishings etc. It is believed by the owner to be Jacob Daub, although this is based upon comparison with a later piece also *assumed* to be Daub but also unsigned, and THAT is in turn compared to an even later piece with "J. Doub Gon Smith" on the box. I have my doubts, but the middle piece (unsigned) is a good link between the earlier #8 stock style and the later 'classic' Bucks skinny style because it looks later, looks kind of classic Bucks, but heavier built if this makes sense. Regardless, to my mind it makes a total of 4 thus far that seem to be by this #8 guy, all much earlier in appearance than the later "Bucks" work but all seemingly tied to it as something of a progenitor of the type.
Then you have the gun that JTR posted. That one came out of a small local museum collection up here in Wysox a few years back, the old Tee-To-Tum museum. This is not the same guy but he was obviously trying to emulate the much more refined #8 guy. I call him "The Wonky Carver" because some of his stuff, like this one, is just out in left field. It's the same guy who did the attributed 'Jacob Dubbs' rifle (because you know, it has a JD on the wrist inlay after all... ::) ) as well as the near identical broken buttstock. And there are others, probably 4 or 5 at least that I've seen and they all have the same architecture, the same mix of American and Euro type furniture (he was probably buying it all) and the same weird and contorted carving, kind of like a mimic of the #8 type work in all ways but in all ways not quite there. This wonky stuff also seems earlier than the later Verner/Shuler/Weiker work that we view as the classic Bucks school, it might be as early as the #8 work or it might fall somewhere in between.
Personally I don;t think that KRA#8 or the Ron gun here or the other one I saw are all that terribly early, perhaps early 1770s although I know there are folks who call #8 as a 1750s gun. The plainer piece I mentioned that the owner attributes to Daub has a 1770s date scratched on the stock, I'll have to go find the pics but its something like 1774 or so and 'I am not afraid' scratched above it. Don;t know about the legitimacy or not of the scratching.
There are a few guys who think these early pieces are early work of Andrew Verner. This is based upon 'back comparing' the grand signed rifle and the one unsigned rifle that is clearly by him, then working backward through a few others that are earlier, unsigned and have carved details that seem to link his later work to this earlier relief work as well as working backward through an attributed stock progression. I'm not at liberty to post a number of the pics that I have, primarily because I have no idea who all variously sent them to me, but it's actually a somewhat plausible case. There really is nothing out there dealing with him prior to the War, I don;t think, but he obviously was extremely accomplished, possibly more so than any of the others, and he may have been older. It's really unfortunate that so many pieces used in this type of hypothtical 'back tracing' are unsigned. A few signatures would go a long way!
-
oh my goodness that's pretty!!!....Hat's off....Mick C
-
It's great to have these discussions here. I love thinking about the early makers, and appreciate those able to do research and share what they've learned, and how that influences their evolving thoughts about particular makers and potential attributions.
I am probably always affected by a few underlining assumptions. One, mentioned above, is the idea that masterful or sophisticated early work must be by gun stockers who were trained in Europe.
Another assumption that probably influences my reasoning is that there could not have been a masterful 1760s to 1770s gunsmith who remains unknown. How could they evade notice when others are so well known? Yet the Leyendecker patchbox reveals that it can happen, that someone apparently near the front of the pack in patchbox evolution would be unknown until the patchbox showed up on ebay.
Another assumption is that we will see characteristic design quirks or "signatures" that are carried over the years and later signed guns with these quirks give clues to who made earlier unsigned guns. A common example is the tang carving on a George Schroyer gun, used to attribute a great many guns to him, though we know other makers used it. In this case of these unsigned guns with some characteristics found on later classical Bucks County guns the characteristic little dual gouge ticks around the carving seem to link some early guns together. Thinking of Andrew Verner as a possible maker of one or more of these early guns, would a gunsmith give up his little dual tick marks over a 20 or 30 year period? Maybe.
Back tracking from a maker's later work to earlier can be productive or lead nowhere. If we look at Isaac Berlin's later work I would not necessarily pick him as the maker of earlier unsigned work, except for the virtuosity.
Bias or desire is another influence to be aware of when reasoning. I know I want robust early American guns to be from the 1750s or 1760s. I get more excited thinking the same rifle is 1750s than considering it might be 1770s. The emergence of some Moravian guns that sure as all get out look super early but are probably 1770s rifles throws a wrench into that line of my thinking.
Ok, recognizing the assumptions I am aware of, I like the wonky carver theory, that this guy is not the maker of KRA #8.
I have always seen Antes as an important influence on the Bucks County school. In the 1770s or 1780s he made long wristed guns with the characteristic buttstock shape that speak "Bucks County roots" to me. I think RCA #53 is the gun I am thinking of, with the daisy patchbox but Bucks County lines, AND the characteristic Bucks County trigger guard already. But nothing suggests to me that Antes had anything to do with KRA #8. It seems a lot of influences came together and for a brief period here were a number of guns that fit into what we call a classic Bucks County style, as though it was a culmination or logical progression. While I admire the carving on the grand Verner, the long wristed architecture and graceful flow of the buttstock of classic Bucks County rifles appeals to me more than the embellishments; the wire inlay, the extended entry thimble skirts, and other fineries. So to me, the origin of the architecture is important, and I don't see much in KRA 8 that contributed to later Bucks County architecture, compared to RCA #53, for example.
To try to summarize my ramble, I am working on the assumption that the architecture, carving styles and motifs, side opening patchboxes, specific furniture styles (the guard and thumbnail tabbed buttplates) and full skirted entry thimbles we associate with classical Bucks County guns came from diverse sources, and that it is unlikely that any one gunsmith was there for the whole ride. But then there is that guy from Easton who seemed to change so well with the times, and George Schroyer too, so it's possible.
-
I assume people are similar now as then.
Some folks settle on a style. It works, they are comfortable within certain bounds. They don't change much, their work doesn't change much.
Other artists are bored with the same thing day after day. Change is the main course.
-
Artists?
Please, the old guys called themselves Gunsmiths, ie, A Verner Gunsmith. G Weiker Gunsmith. etc.
Artist is a modern day qualifier for some modern day guys.
John
-
What a beautiful piece! Very believable and so nicely executed. I am curious, though, as to what the round structure is in the front of the patchbox cavity.
Super work!
Gregg
-
Not to speak for the maker but such holes sometimes capture a worm used to clean the gun and hold it from rattling around.
-
Yes, the hole up into the front of the box cavity was virtually ubiquitous in the Northampton Co. area and was also used in Bucks and Berks fairly often. There have been boxes in "as-found" guns that turn up with the worm up in those holes and the boxes stuffed with tow or patches etc. to keep the worm in place.
-
Artists?
Please, the old guys called themselves Gunsmiths, ie, A Verner Gunsmith. G Weiker Gunsmith. etc.
Artist is a modern day qualifier for some modern day guys.
John
Disagreement here. Wether they knew it or not and no matter what they labeled themselves the old makers were doing art work. Wood & metal sculpting. carving, engraving, etc. If they were doing only functional non art pieces they would have been pretty square and undecorated, why waste all that time to make it look good? I've always suspected there were more guns put together from bought components than banged out piece by piece on an anvil. No different than today, labor is expensive and the more castings and "factory" (imported from euro "specialist" barrel makers as well as colonial "specialist" barrel makers) made barrels you can choose the less you have to charge for a gun. I'm sure local hardware stores did a brisk business in gun parts.
-
Thank you Mike.
We might call ourselves artists today, but 250 years ago, these makers were artists, whether they thought about it or not.
-
I'd like to kindly disagree, but this thread is about Ron's rifle and some old Bucks rifles, and that's what belongs here.
John
-
It is nice to see the discussion that this thread has stimulated. It is exactly what I had hoped for. Eric K. is right on that there are several other rifles out there that might be considered 'sister" rifles. Rich and others are right that John Antes' contribution to this style of building needs much more investigation. Is there some totally unknown progenitor, as Eric K suggest, certainly an enticing possibility. Perhaps we are looking for a black cat in a dark room that isn't there, but the hunt is half the fun. Little quirks, habits in embellishment form a modes operandi that help identify an maker.
Eric Armstrong has long studied this area of building, and has amassed a very nice hoard of reference material. As Eric K said so many of the important records that may well have held the answers have been lost. It will be up to those of us who study that which is left to reach conclusions...hopefully sound ones.
BTW, John whether you call the old gun builders, gunsmiths or artist the result is a piece of functional art. As Mike says, it a heck of a lot easier to build a plain gun, than a highly decorated one. The finer the quality of the decoration the more cost. When you collect a gun, you will likely choose one that has fine quality carving, architecture and hopefully linked to a desirable maker over a plain gun linked to the same maker. You make that decision based on art produced by an artist who's medium was a gun.
Ron
-
Did anyone happen to save the photos from this thread?
Thanks, Howard.
-
I restored what I could. Take another look.
-
That is awesome, thank you!!!
-
That's a SUPER NICE early rifle! You did a great job making it look like an original!
-
Nicely done. I noticed that the carving around the tang is not incised but in relief...... my BCs all have relief carving
which has engendered some criticism....thanks for the backup. The relief carving was my choice because some of the originals w/ shallow incised carving had the carving washed out.......also the slightly curved combline adds a lot....Fred