AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: snapper on November 28, 2015, 02:42:42 AM
-
Why do some gunmakers leave the stock carvings not cleaned up? It would not take much extra time to get rid of the rough surface or even to clean the finish out of these areas. IMO it makes an other wise work of art look like $#@*.
Fleener
-
I think this might be a matter of perspective or degree, and it is impossible to know the level of work you find objectionable. That said, the backgrounds in traditional carving were not cleaned up the way we might expect today. They were left as the chisel left them. As a general rule, I build my guns to 18th or 19th century standards and not 21st century standards. That means leaving backgrounds a little uneven, just as you carved them. If I can easily get a scraper in around the edges and clean up a bit, I will, but not to look like I took sandpaper to it. I use the best 18th century work as my guide. The best work is outstanding, but it isn't machine perfect. Again, it is hard to comment without seeing what you are seeing.
-
A lot of originals we get to see are pretty worn and so it can be challenging to see what they looked like new. However, looking at any Bonewitz rifle, the background of his carving is pretty clean. The degree of difficulty in cleaning background may depend also on how high the relief carving is.
-
Been working on some carving and trying to clean it up but in some areas where I might have scraped too aggressively, against the grain, or with a dull scraper, it can be frustrating. I think I need to sharpen my scrappers, need lessons, need to see more originals, and a host of other things not the least of which is a cold beer.
-
Might help to know if you're referring to modern made (since it's here in the Builders section) or antique rifles.
Do you have any pictures of examples you'd care to share?
John
-
I am make reference to modern made rifles.
Thanks
Fleener
-
I think it comes down to what the builder is trying to accomplish. Trying to create that "workman like finish of the 1700's" or the " better than the original builders could dream of finish" seen on some rifle today varies from gun to gun and builder to builder. You may think it looks like *#&!;#/%&, but others might see it the way it should be. Besides now just like then you have different talent levels. Everybody starts somewhere.
Greg
-
I think a definition of "not cleaned up" is in order. Honestly, a sharp chisel cut looks pretty clean to me.
-
Jim Kibler's work would suffice as the definition of cleaned up.
-
Most carving on contemporary LRs has "cleaned up" backgrounds....perhaps the present day customers demand that? I could imagine that a rough carving background would be construed by some customers as shoddy workmanship....many don't have historical info that would "justify" a rough background? I wouldn't be satisfied selling one of my LRs w/ even a so-so background because a " reputation" for sloppy work might be the result....Fred
-
In my opinion, modern replica carving should look well done, accomplished in a workmanlike manner. Tool marks can be present, as long as they don't distract from the overall look. You will find contemporary builders' carving that varies from perfect to 'darned good, with visible tool marks'.
From the original question, Snapper, it sounds like you may be thinking of a particular gun you've seen somewhere. If it's your gun, I can offer suggestions. If it's not your work, I won't discuss it on line.
-
Personally, I like tool marks to a degree.
-
In my opinion, modern replica carving should look well done, accomplished in a workmanlike manner. Tool marks can be present, as long as they don't distract from the overall look. You will find contemporary builders' carving that varies from perfect to 'darned good, with visible tool marks'.
Tool marks are common and the end result is a by product.
Bob Roller
-
Most carving on contemporary LRs has "cleaned up" backgrounds....perhaps the present day customers demand that? I could imagine that a rough carving background would be construed by some customers as shoddy workmanship....many don't have historical info that would "justify" a rough background? I wouldn't be satisfied selling one of my LRs w/ even a so-so background because a " reputation" for sloppy work might be the result....Fred
That's where education is so important. I learn so much from everyone in this site, it would be a shame if only builders are learning and buyers are just buying something and not truly understanding what the rifles where historically and what they can be today. Ignorance is not bliss.
Greg
-
I like to see the hand of the maker in the work. The older I get, the more 'hand' there is. I'm becoming more discerning about what's important an what's not.
-
Hi,
I am in Acer's camp. While sipping some of Tom's good scotch whiskey during Dixon's, we all got to chatting about a similar topic. I mentioned the Japanese aesthetic philosophy of "Wabi Sabi" (no fooling, that is what it is called). Essentially it says all things made by man are never finished, never perfect, and do not last forever. The philosophy upholds a very high standard of craftsmanship and a striving for perfection but also encourages a craftsman to leave some evidence of human frailty and imperfection in his work. Those imperfections are the human connection separating the work from that made by machine.
dave
-
Most carving on contemporary LRs has "cleaned up" backgrounds....perhaps the present day customers demand that? I could imagine that a rough carving background would be construed by some customers as shoddy workmanship....many don't have historical info that would "justify" a rough background? I wouldn't be satisfied selling one of my LRs w/ even a so-so background because a " reputation" for sloppy work might be the result....Fred
That's where education is so important. I learn so much from everyone in this site, it would be a shame if only builders are learning and buyers are just buying something and not truly understanding what the rifles where historically and what they can be today. Ignorance is not bliss.
Greg
Ignorance may not be bliss, but ignorance is awfully common!
-
Educate, from the Latin: "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out"+ ducere "to lead"
To be in anything seriously, one must take the responsibility of their education upon themselves. Education can only be offered. You cannot educate me if I don't want to be educated, or am too lazy, or don't care.
This longrifle business is a passion for so many of us. We take it seriously. We also have a hard time with those who don't take this seriously.
There is a world of difference between a new builder who seeks to do better, and a builder who does not care. I will bend over backwards for the first, and not give the latter a second thought.
-
Educate, from the Latin: "bring out, lead forth," from ex- "out"+ ducere "to lead"
To be in anything seriously, one must take the responsibility of their education upon themselves. Education can only be offered. You cannot educate me if I don't want to be educated, or am too lazy, or don't care.
This longrifle business is a passion for so many of us. We take it seriously. We also have a hard time with those who don't take this seriously.
There is a world of difference between a new builder who seeks to do better, and a builder who does not care. I will bend over backwards for the first, and not give the latter a second thought.
Yea.....I never quite got over the "Bullard" rifle not being built by "Bullard". :( But that's the way it is....
-
Every time I do anything I learn. With every goof I learn. I learn more from repairing my mistakes. Than anything else.
-
Smart Dog I too am with Acer on this subject. Unless there is something gross going on with a background an otherwise workmanlike job looks fine to my eye. One can tell honest work from the other.
dave
-
"To be in anything seriously, one must take the responsibility of their education upon themselves."
Very well said. Thank you Acer.
-
Just seems to me if it 'looks' hand made, probably was. If it looks machine made, probably was. I like to think a man actually put some sweat into my old guns. Even my Lugers, if you look, one can find hand work. Just another opinion.
-
Dave
I agree, and follow the thinking that what is made by man is not perfect. I can point out all the flaws in anything that I make.
It just seems odd that someone would put in a lot of hours and not make it as nice as you can. The rest of the rifle is knock dead perfect, just lack of detail to some of these small areas.
There are rifles that have pictures posted here that also looks like that the builder got sloppy with the stock finish in these areas. You can see it in the corners.
Not throwing stones, just wondering if there was a good reason.
Acer, I did send you a private message.
Fleener
-
Hi Snapper,
You have a good eye. I have to admit that I struggle with finish build up in the corners of carving on every gun I build. I have never found a really good way to deal with it except to apply finish very thinly and slowly. Even then dust, particles, and finish still thicken in the corners and I rub them vigorously with a stiff natural bristle brush. That helps a lot but I can never remove all of the buildup everywhere. Certainly, this is almost no issue if I produce a low sheen "in-the-wood" oil finish, but on most guns I build, I am using or trying to emulate an oil-varnish finish, which can lead to build up. Another factor that plagues me, Snapper, is lighting. I have good lighting but you really have to work that lighting to see imperfections in the wood surface from carving and shaping, especially on light colored woods like maple . It always happens, that I think I have the background perfectly smooth and then later I examine the spot under low angle light and I find rough spots. I take care of all the spots I find, then after staining the wood and working the lighting, I find some more. I am not referring to gentle ripples caused by scraping, which I like and retain, but tool marks or shaping flaws. Then the real kicker is, after I think everything is good, I put finish on the stock. As the finish becomes a little shiny, inevitably I notice a few more spots that I missed. At that point, I live with them. My guns are a very human product, warts and all.
dave
-
Using "workman like manner" of the original makers as criteria for present day builds doesn't seem to be very popular....judging from the work displayed on ALR. Many builds from various modern makers are examples of "near perfection" and the latest presented by Ed Wenger is a "perfect" example. Have seen many MLers by top builders pictured on ALR and one is hard put to see any flaws in the pictures....perhaps the pics are a product of "Photoshop" and all the flaws have been eliminated.? Just kidding, but on many of those guns, it could well have been judging from the excellent quality and evidently not using "workman like manner" as a quality assurance guide.....Fred
-
So much depends who the gun was/is made for.
If one is emulating a gun from the 18th Century, one must subject his work to the context of the times.
If you're making a contemporary gun that relates to the current times, loosely based on historical work, then the sky's the limit as to how the gun gets finished, how much bling goes on it.
I see Ed Wenger's German Fowler as a piece made in the spirit of the original work, finished very close to what the clientele of the day would expect for that level of quality.
An 18th Century working American gun seldom saw the degree of finish that you see on some of our current artists produce. Rare was the 18th C maker who finished his work to the degree we see today.
This gun building is an art form, and the builder gets to express himself through his hands, mind, and materials.
-
I would love to see all the artists on this forum build a workman like rifle or fowler. I don't think most would be willing to spend the money on such a project. It sounds like buyers would refuse them, and other builders would be embarassed to have made them, even though they would be identical to the craftsmanship that we try to emulate. Are we really trying to recreate these arms, or are we simply fooling ourselves?
As it's been discussed, even in the 1700's workman finish could be a thing of beauty on a fine grade arm, or much cruder on a more simple piece. My question is why must all arms from military muskets, to barn guns to rifles all be finished to such a high degree today? Is it judging like at Dixon's that make us all do it? Or is a competition between builders that make each one of use want to bring the finish on our guns to the next level?
Please don't take any of this as me knocking anyone here. I'm in awe of most here and continue to learn from you all. Just trying to wrap my mind around how we got to this desire of such high finish which in reality brings us farther away from originals.
Greg
-
Greg, yours is a good question. I get it. I wrassle with these thoughts all the time.
I get a sense that the newer breed of collector is looking for art, for a story, for historic relevance, attention to detail, highest quality.
As far as judging at Dixon's, for example, I take this as a guide. One can learn a heck of a lot by entering a gun into such a judged event. Do not use the judgement as a mandate how you have to build for the rest of your life, but as a guide to improving your skills.
If you want to emulate 18th Century work, for example, study originals in museums and private collections where available.
If you want to follow the more contemporary track, seek out builders in the style you like. Go to gun shows, talk with these builders.
Don't accidentally use 21st Century ideals to build 18th Century arms.
-
Hi Greg,
I don't think anyone collectively ordained we all should build to perfection. Some individuals come close to that (Jim Kibler, Bill Shipman come to mind) but the objectives and skill levels of individual builders or desires of clients tend to determine the cosmetic qualities of guns. In the photos below, I show 3 guns that I posted here in recent times. All were built and finished within the spirit of a "workman-like manner". I did not cut corners but I did every task efficiently, deliberately, with skill, but I did not fuss. If the imperfection was missed or not important, I just moved on. On the second gun shown, I even strictly limited my time on the decoration to no more than 2 hours on each section. That included drawing the design, cutting it, and finishing it to the point of staining. The Brown Bess was finished with rasps, files, and then directly to scrapers, and the finish applied neatly but without much fuss over the details. I personally like the appearances of all three and I notice that there is a market for that kind of appearance.
dave
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi518.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu344%2Fdavid_person%2FStar%2520of%2520Bethlehem%25203_zps0lok4rq9.jpg&hash=412fd0a57aead1359a15339b82c69ca587dd090d)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi518.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu344%2Fdavid_person%2FStar%2520of%2520Bethlehem%25206_zpszx9pob7y.jpg&hash=1cf63a6277d7618fa6feb2705589a02b17dfe917)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi518.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu344%2Fdavid_person%2FReadingGun6_zps35828617.jpg&hash=3dca4cd9df816d61163d57fd06c8f545abab5ede)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi518.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu344%2Fdavid_person%2FReadingGun4_zpsf14f530e.jpg&hash=65def6c652a151016c7dfbd7039abf3429a459f2)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi518.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu344%2Fdavid_person%2FRowland%2520Brown%2520Bess%2520lock_zpsgvpqjx2c.jpg&hash=50521d818fd193a4b37ce1555a53bea26a7866c7)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi518.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu344%2Fdavid_person%2FRowland%2520Brown%2520bess%2520Cheek%2520side_zpsakitvgnj.jpg&hash=fc58a8cf9fcdea436d7cc277c255deddaffcc3ec)
-
Dave and Acer,
These flintlocks look spectacular, with any little flaw that came along while making it. This is what I picture as period correct finish. You mentioned names like Kibler and Shipman as the leaders in the "perfectionist" class of builders. Their rifles are literally pieces of artwork. Not knocking them at all, but I picture that rifle in a display or locked in a vault, not in the hands of a reenactor, trekker, or hunter. Not to say someone isn't hunting or shooting them, they just seen too good for that.
My humble guns are not in either class.....yet. I continue to try. I think the better than extraordinary finishes confound me because I am not capable of them, and the clientele who look for this are not people I'm familiar with.
Acer, some day I hope to enter a piece for judgment at Dixon's. I'll take your advice, learn from it, but not let it stop me from creating what I want. I'll just be able to do it better.
My next project I'm picking a period piece that is simple, but but I want to focus of honing my stock shaping and cleaning up around some simple carving. The architecture of the stock is where I strive to be a perfectionist. I believe that is the most important aspect as to making a piece "feel" right.
Greg
-
I was wondering if Snapper could show us some examples of his work.
-
If you watch the DVD of Mark Silver, stocking a long rifle with hand tools , you can see the finished product i.e. the end result of his labour. He explains the effects /surface finishes etc of the process and I simply can't begin to describe this as " unfinished" There are facets visible, and you can clearly see the evidence of very sharp tools being used, but there is a charm /look to the overall piece which can't compare to what I consider to be an "overly finished " gun. Obviously, there is a market for both of these ,but I think we need to dis-spell the notion of approving of sloppy work. Some of the contemporary works I've seen are absolute works of art and the level of skill and workmanship border on perfection. [ but in a contemporary way :) ] Much of Eric Kettenburg's work would serve as an example of what I prefer in a finished gun.
-
To me I can appreciate the skill an artistic talent that so many of you have. Your guns are true masterpieces. Far beyond my capabilities. But yet I can enjoy the barn guns, the poor boy style like a soddy- daisies style etc. I like a hunting gun that a nick or too gives it character. But my dream is to build a rifle like Mike,Ed,Acer,Jim an so many others here. An if I did not mention your name I apologize because I admire all of your abilities an what you can do. Mr Kindig was so right when he called them a true American art form.
-
Is this what we are discussing?
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-L6HTmcU0X1s%2FVlmeMEJS8aI%2FAAAAAAABkvw%2FO6k8kVWpOdU%2Fs1600%2F7.jpeg&hash=f1dd7b255e6489445b0e3f957cd433cd54a03367)
It, a german hunting gun, is featured on Art and jan's blog this morning - 12/2/15. Looks like a darn good workmanlike job to my eye, I love it. The design is well conceived, balanced and expertly done.
Rifle by: Christoph Josef Frey München, around 1770 featured on the Contemporary Makers Blog.
dave
-
Here is a close-up of the carving on a Hauschka fowler in the Met collection. There are areas which are very tooley, but I don't know if this happened later on or was created like this. If you have a dull scraper the wood fibers actually get compressed. The surface looks smooth, until years later the compressed wood comes raises up to its natural state. Use sharp tools.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi12.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa246%2FTom45-70%2FOriginal%2520gun%2520photos%2FDSC_1292.jpg&hash=91716d093ddb52cc52043d36b00d28b3c8070c83) (http://s12.photobucket.com/user/Tom45-70/media/Original%20gun%20photos/DSC_1292.jpg.html)
-
That looks like a nice gun Dave but is it camera angle or is the butt plate curved the wrong way?
-
That looks like a nice gun Dave but is it camera angle or is the butt plate curved the wrong way?
I believe that is just the style smylee. check out this Louis Jaley french flintlock at the Met
http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/24929?rpp=30&pg=1&ft=flintlock&pos=2&imgno=0&tabname=label
dave
-
Yes I see, a true work of art for sure. Thanks for the link on that gun.
-
Don't accidentally use 21st Century ideals to build 18th Century arms.
DING DING DING DING! Acer wins the prize!
You can use 21st century tools but not ideals. There is definitely a mind set to some of the best work that gets posted here. And by "mind set" you may be surprised what I consider "best work" that I see here. Of course we all like different things.
I have to approach this stuff with a "workman like mind set". I only have just so much time to devote to a gun and make any money on it. As Bill Clinton is apt to say " I got bills to pay". I can't sweat details and work the price niche that I work in. I fell I'm pretty realistic about where my market is, I'm never going to get rich doing this but I think I can deliver a working and convinceable piece of art at a certain price that works for me and my market. Even at my level of finish there is alot of stress involved....had to go on anxiety meds 15 years ago just to continue. ::)
-
Is this what we are discussing?
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-L6HTmcU0X1s%2FVlmeMEJS8aI%2FAAAAAAABkvw%2FO6k8kVWpOdU%2Fs1600%2F7.jpeg&hash=f1dd7b255e6489445b0e3f957cd433cd54a03367)
It, a german hunting gun, is featured on Art and jan's blog this morning - 12/2/15. Looks like a darn good workmanlike job to my eye, I love it. The design is well conceived, balanced and expertly done.
Rifle by: Christoph Josef Frey München, around 1770 featured on the Contemporary Makers Blog.
dave
This is a helluva good gun, right up my alley. I especially like the big honkin patch in the cheekpiece! ;D
The whole gun looks like it was put together in a workman like manner by probably several highly talented craftsmen that did this work every day.
Post Script.....
The curvature of that buttplate is a fairly common thing for euro guns of that time period. I find it pretty charming.
-
In a video demonstrating his carving technique Homer Dangler made a comparison of current builders to those back in the day. I cannot quote him but it was something like, The old timers made functional rifles with some art carved into the stock. Current builders make artwork that shoots. I've built or remodeled several rifles but I'm no artist and not even an advanced hobby builder. I don't find a few tool marks to be all that offensive. :-\
-
Hi,
This is a great conversation but I am bothered by the notion expressed by some that "today's makers" do this or that. Today's makers express and incredible diversity of styles and approaches.
Some make modern muzzleloaders inside out and others weave old methods, styles, finishes, wear and tear, etc. into their work. Today's makers and their customers are not a homogenous group. The DNA varies widely.
dave
-
I don't find the curve in the butt of that gun offensive myself but was curious if that was a curve or if the gun was made that way. My choice of words might have been better. I think this is a good topic as there are so many different personality's building great guns and showing them on this site and you can see it on a daily basis.
-
Smart Dog, I understand your point. I hope I don't come across as 'this is the right way', for that is not my intention.
I agree completely that we are a diverse group, and our taste in guns varies as much as anything else in life.
You cannot dispute what a man likes. I may not like what you like, but that's OK.
-
To me it makes sense to try to emulate original work which was quite diverse. If I was building a Bonewitz or the Fessler rifle (musician's rifle) or RCA 42, or a JP Beck, I'd want the finish to be representative of those originals. If a type G grade gun or NW gun, or a Brown Bess, the level of finish appropriate for those as originally made. But there is always the temptation for the hobbyist to take extra care in finishing.
-
I think we make a lot of assumptions on the ALR, for example 'everyone is interested in emulating originals' when they may not be.
That said, emulation and reproduction of originals are two of the main interests/intentions of this site.
I ought to expand on the thought 'Don't accidentally use 21st Century ideals to build 18th Century arms' , in that many of us do not have access to original guns, and our libraries are not very deep. But we are hungry enough to take a stab at building, and work our way into carving, often with really knowing what we are doing. I did this, so I know. So we sometimes use another builder's contemporary piece as our model. We will often apply 21st century techniques, styling and finishes to our own work, because contemporary pieces are very accessible in comparison to original guns.
As one gets deeper into this study, a passion for a certain rifle school can develop. Suddenly the history and culture where this school developed becomes fascinating. This can lead to making connections with like-minded artists or collectors. Road trips ensue, income drops, wife divorces you. Turn back while you can.
-
Mark
If I had any examples of rifles with carvings on it I would certainly post pictures for you. I have never done any carvings on anything I have built.
Currently out of town for work and don't have access to my pictures of rifles I have built or finished. If you really want to see pictures of my finish work I can post perhaps this weekend
Not sure how that will help with this topic?
Fleener
-
No need to post your work unless you are seeking critique or adulation.
Snapper, your question inspired a lot of conversation, and inventorying of my belief system. My perspective slowly changes, often unnoticed, so it's good to review every so often.
-
I could post one everyone would get a kick out of. It is a Vincent style rifle that is too fat. I built it several years ago and could not see it then. It is on my to do list this winter to fix. It has never been shot. Built it for my oldest son and school, sports and girls have gotten in the way. There is hope for him. His girlfriend grand pa builds ML and I understand and she also hunts with them
Fleener
-
Why do some gunmakers leave the stock carvings not cleaned up? It would not take much extra time to get rid of the rough surface or even to clean the finish out of these areas. IMO it makes an other wise work of art look like $#@*.
Fleener
Everyone works to the standard they think is proper. Some don't seem to have a standard or simply can't tell good work from bad. I get the idea from guns and comments I sometimes see here and on the blog that the latter is the case. OR the commenters simply will not tell the truth.
Dan
-
People often like clear cut standards, but in my mind it's not that simple. A gun with perfectly clean carving can be fantastic as can one with tool marks all over it. I believe it's the design and resulting concept that matters. In one sense, you can think of tool marks as part of the design.
Another thing that should be noted, is that tool marks are not all equal. A highly skilled carver can leave texture that is relatively uniform and reflects his skill with chisels and gouges. Someone with less skill may leave torn grain or allow the corners of chisels to dig in etc. These are very different levels of workmanship.
With this said, If someone wants to emulate a lower level of workmanship there's nothing at all wrong with that! In fact some might think it's more appropriate.
What matters for me most is the impact of the final design and creation. Does it grab you. Lots of ways to make something that does this.
Jim
-
tool marks are not all equal.
Are the marks accidental, or are they part of the process? Do the marks add to the overall effect, or take away from it?
Excellent thoughts, Jim.
-
tool marks are not all equal.
Are the marks accidental, or are they part of the process? Do the marks add to the overall effect, or take away from it?
Excellent thoughts, Jim.
Acer,
I'm my opinion the answer is yes to all your statements. They can be all of the above. Skilled or unskilled. Either way a mark that living breathing person used their skills to the best that they could , working man-made and natural materials into something someone else will cherish. Loose the marks, and you have a gun that comes to us via a lightning bolt from some firearm loving God. Looks great, but not created by a man, therefore missing that connection that I need to feel when picking up a flintlock. Perhaps this is why I just don't get into my modern firearms as much.
Greg
-
"Tool marks are not all equal." I could not agree more. I carved for many years before I ever built my first rifle. I took pride in clean professional tool marks that needed no sanding. Sharp tools are a must. I do scrape and sand on my rifles ,but I try to keep it at a minimum.
Bob