AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: conquerordie on July 06, 2016, 02:00:32 AM
-
Evening everyone,
About a year ago I posted my first rifle from a plank, a short barreled jeager ca. 1710. Now that I have a few more builds from planks under my belt, I noticed that I had left WAY too much wood EVERYWHERE! So I set off to remove everything I could. Heres what it looks like now:
[(https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j400/conquerordie/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161754_zps4is8graw.jpg) (http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/conquerordie/media/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161754_zps4is8graw.jpg.html)
(https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j400/conquerordie/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161754a_zpsfcu7c7zb.jpg) (https://s1083.photobucket.com/user/conquerordie/media/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161754a_zpsfcu7c7zb.jpg.html)
(https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j400/conquerordie/Mobile%20Uploads/0703161042_HDR_zpsgyv4ja8w.jpg) (https://s1083.photobucket.com/user/conquerordie/media/Mobile%20Uploads/0703161042_HDR_zpsgyv4ja8w.jpg.html)
(https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j400/conquerordie/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161756a_zpsqsr6dwc4.jpg) (https://s1083.photobucket.com/user/conquerordie/media/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161756a_zpsqsr6dwc4.jpg.html)
(https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j400/conquerordie/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161755_zpsoljv6igc.jpg) (https://s1083.photobucket.com/user/conquerordie/media/Mobile%20Uploads/0705161755_zpsoljv6igc.jpg.html)
I removed so much wood that I had to completely recarve the stock. My carving still needs improving, but its better than it was. I removed a 1/4" of wood from each side the butt by reshaping the buttplate some. I halved the lockplate panels from what they were, removed excess from the forearm, and made the wrist smaller. It feels like a totally different rifle. Thoughts, critiques, comments are all welcomed. Let me know what I can improve. I dont think I'll tackle this rifle for a third time with improvements, but I will apply them to my next build. Thanks again,
Greg
-
Did you have to apply for a SBR tax stamp before building that? ;) Just kidding! Nice little gun!
-
Coming along - much better overall, but isn't it just a little too robust still?
-
You need to handle more originals, that will really speed you along. Nice berries... ;)
-
I had to go back over my first build awhile back. Just couldn't stand it any more. Mine was way to thick along the barrel.
-
If it functions and you are happy with it then that's all that matters. My first rifle from a plank looked OK and functioned well but I could not get down on the sights it was to fat and I did not have enough drop in it. So I made note of that and my next rifle was better. You have to start somewhere and I think your rifle is a fair start.
I agree with Mike though you have to get your hands on a few originals to fully appreciate what is needed to build a rifle. Even Jaeger's that are more robust than our American Longrifle are fairly slender when held in the hands. Looking at pictures can be quite deceiving as to the size of Jaeger's.
Good luck with your building. It is an addiction you know ;D
-
I like it ! The Jaeger is supposed to be robust. Each made for the Jaeger himself ! The millitary jaeger rifles were made as close to pattern aSporting Jaegers are for the most part one of a kind / individual works, no two alike. s possible . What lenth and caliber is this one. So if you like it , and it fits you it is right. Thank You for showing . Ron.
You need to handle originals too. You can always tell on contemporary jeagers if the builder has actualy handled an antique or not.
Jeagars were built according to "schools" just like American longrifles so they are alike inside of their "schools" . Unfortunately today, Most contemporary work is done willy-nilly with no adherence to any particular school. It seems as long as they are built short, fat and lumpy you're in....not hardly close to what the originals are. It also helps to build them with the correct wood too. :P
-
Greg, the first rifle I built was re-worked 3 times to remove excess wood. The more I learned about rifle architecture the more I realized how much wood still needed to be removed. I think that will happen with you too. As has been stated, handle as many antiques as you can, look at guns in museums and study pictures in books. The more you learn, the more wood you will want to remove.
-
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hermann-historica-archiv.de%2Fauktion%2Fimages53_gr%2F61898.jpg&hash=fcebe3a28713d857822add8ba5054637ecaecb7c)
This is the rifle that I used as inspiration. I was able to blow it up to actual size to use as my profile for my stock. I also took some of the carving as inspiration for my rifle. Its short and stocky. Ive read that maple was used on originals. Looking back on Herman Historica, some of them do look curly maple to me. I read it was being exported to Europe throughout the 18th century. But I am not a professional, in learning. I agree that handling originals is the best. I've handled countless muskets from the 18th century, but not single rifle. I hope to remedy this for my nest project. Keep the critiques and comments coming. If I've made mistakes, or can make improvements I want to do them. My feelings wont be hurt, I promise.
As a side note, my ramrod channel did dive down some towards the lock so extra thickness or height is due to that in part. The barrel measure 21.25 long. At the breech it measures 1.33, smallest 1.08, and muzzle 1.25. Thick bar of a barrel made by Rice. Shoots great though. Copied off an original. Thanks
Greg
-
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hermann-historica-archiv.de%2Fauktion%2Fimages53_gr%2F61898.jpg&hash=fcebe3a28713d857822add8ba5054637ecaecb7c)
This is the rifle that I used as inspiration. I was able to blow it up to actual size to use as my profile for my stock. I also took some of the carving as inspiration for my rifle. Its short and stocky. Ive read that maple was used on originals. Looking back on Herman Historica, some of them do look curly maple to me. I read it was being exported to Europe throughout the 18th century. But I am not a professional, in learning. I agree that handling originals is the best. I've handled countless muskets from the 18th century, but not single rifle. I hope to remedy this for my nest project. Keep the critiques and comments coming. If I've made mistakes, or can make improvements I want to do them. My feelings wont be hurt, I promise.
Greg
I don't have the "eye" for this type of rifle but your build looks as "chubby" as the picture -- again it is just a picture and as I have never held one of these rifles I can only go by the picture. I do like your "chubby" Jeager ;D
-
No expert here either but sure looks like a nice job of emulating the original you posted.Besides she ain't fat,she's just big boned ;)
-
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hermann-historica-archiv.de%2Fauktion%2Fimages53_gr%2F61640.jpg&hash=635ce3a76cfcfb0dc91a144a564be6436e9e4831)
Here is the jeager in maple I thought I saw. Its how I justified using maple for my stock.
Greg
-
where is the one you're trying to emulate? I don't see it. I looked up jager rifles on google and found lots of good pictures. Never seen one in person. Seems like a lot of them are very ornate and have more of a baroque style of decoration.
edit: now I see the pictures of the one you were using for inspiration. Those pictures were blocked for me earlier. Nice looking gun.
-
Seems our opinions differ Mike. Thats OK , just your opinion, and just my opinion. Everyone has one. One thing I do agree with you about, I do need to handle some originals. You should handle some originals also , then you will see there are no two alike . If built in the time period of thier design , they would have been built to fit the owner . Matter of fact there is an nice 1803 Danish / Norwegian , .72 cal. sitting here that needs some handling as I type . I think I will. I cant comment on the willy/ nilly builders part , I do not know these builders you speak of. and would not want to offend them, with such talk. Sincerely Ron Wehmeyer
It seems I have probably handled several hundred over the past three and a half decades. Or, maybe I only dreamed it..... ::) I'm not working with an "opinion" here. There are areas or "schools" that jeagers came from and they are clearly identifiable. It wasn't an "anything goes" bag of mixed matched mumbo jumbo of parts, carving and architecture. For instance, If I saw a Brandenburg school gun (Berlin) it would be immediately recognizable because of the traits of the Brandenburg school were very distinct. Same with all other schools across the German/Austrian etc. lands.
As to contemporary builders, it's odd how the truth sometimes offends. ;)
-
I didn't realize there were so many schools of Jaegers. The pic is one I owned a year or so ago. The barrel is .54 and 25" long. It is fairly trim and light by Jaeger standards.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv643%2Fmyshootinstinks%2FIMG_3065_zpsepazlyh3.jpg&hash=5fc32f40c92bcfea561995e89450a36535ebe255) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/myshootinstinks/media/IMG_3065_zpsepazlyh3.jpg.html)
-
Bravo to you Conquerordie for re-doing your gun. It's a big undertaking of a complex nature. I am not an expert as I have only seen two original Jagers and got to shoot one several times. So from my limited experience I will say I think your gun still needs some thinning down. If it were my gun I would also lengthen the wrist just a small amount and would place the forward sling to the rear some so it would rest on the forward RR pipe. Even though she is a big boned girl she does have some charm. What cal. is it?
-
I think the name "chubby jeager" is gonna stick with this gun. So specifically where too trim wood? I'm not going to redo this gun again, but I want to know for my next build. I used the scaled up picture to use as a template. Its the size of the original so I want to keep it that way. So where specifically on the buttstock and forearm should I watch on my next build?
Can anyone answer as to what school this rifle is from? Just curious. I have builders blindness because to me it looks great, that's why I asked all of you. You can see what I'm overlooking. Keep them coming!
PS it's 62 caliber.
Greg
-
Considering I had the privilege to examine most all the jeagers that George Shumway had come through his booth since 1980 or so, and the vast number of high end gunshows I have had the opportunity to attend, and the fact The largest gun auction house in the world is located with in an hour of my house and that I also worked there writing descriptions for a time I suppose some where around 100 to 200 jeagers wouldn't be too far off of the actual number I have had the privilege of handling.
I didn't just fall off the tatter wagon yesterday...... ;)
Not bragging, just giving you my background.
The gun in question isn't bad, but he would have built it completely differently if he would have had a chance to handle it in person. Photos can be very deceptive.
Look at Shumways books and the dimensions listed for the jeagers he features. It's all about the barrel man, and the width of the buttplate.
-
I think you did a good job on youre first build.Its a good way to measure youre progress.When you can look back at youre first build and compare to what you are doing now.You can only get so much from reading books and looking and studying pictures.We have to handle and study the real thing.
-
If someone were contemplating building a Jager what reference would be a good one to learn about the schools? Seems that the major suppliers only handle limited parts for these early pieces and I am wondering if they are really compatible or not.
-
.....And to think all this came from me saying I like the OP'S Jaeger and if it fit him , then it was right......
No, I think it was your previous statement that "Sporting Jaegers are for the most part one of a kind / individual works, no two alike."
-Ron
-
So I am for sure going to build another jaeger now. I have to improve the overall stock architecture by getting better research material, and handling originals. Im lining up a few places, putting in some emails to see what they have that I can examine. I like to build odd guns, earlier the better, so I fear that I might not be able to find the perfect rifle to view, but I will take what I can get to get a better feel for the design aspects that I missed on my first build. If anyone has material on a rifle they'd like to share, or know of a few originals in the New England area, PM me and I'll see what I can do. Maybe Ill try posting this next build like others have, so I can get comments and concerns as I build instead of trying to redo after I've finished.
As another member asked, does anyone make hardware that is appropriate for these rifles. Im aware of Ron Scotts incredible stuff, but my taste lies with more simple guns, so too fancy furniture will look silly on one of my rifles.
Thanks again for all the comments.
Greg
-
Been thinking about this a while.......Perhaps another novice builders opinion might help.Never built one of these things before and when I decided the time was right I started to do a little research. The Internet is a wonderful thing,brought me here.While my rifle choice is different the theorys the same.Pictures and history can only serve you so far,me I had a chance to handle original rifles a fellow on here was gracious enough to let me see.Problems getting away prevented me from seeing these pieces of history.Looking back on it,It would have made building said rifle a whole lot easier. Pictures even with detailed measurements while a great thing there's something about getting a feel for it in your own two hands,the feel,the way it handles,ect.If I where you and jeagers are your passion seek out somebody who has originals and get the "feel" of them.You will get lots of opinions here for what it should look like ,how to build ect.ect.This is all great but sometimes it may leave you with more questions than answers.Find someone who's built them and knows his stuff and hopefully he will field some of your questions,while posting questions here is a great help getting five,ten different opinions is not if your just getting your feet wet with your build.My two cents.
-
You might think about coming to the CLA Show/meeting in Lexington this summer. Usually there are a number of original and contemporary Jaeger's there that you can actually handle.. as well as o bunch of other beautiful pieces and the best bunch of most helpful builders and collectors you will ever find!!
-
I generally don't supply critique unless it's specifically asked for. In this case, Greg, you asked for comments and critique.
Critique is a tricky thing; it can make one uncomfortable, and sometime even make one angry, especially after having put so much of your hopes and dreams into a piece, whether it be a gun, a painting, a garden shed, etc.
I, for one, have not always received criticism well, but have slowly learned that it most often given in a spirit of generosity, and a genuine interest in helping me to see or improve my skills and my own ability to criticize my work as I move through a project. But you can't live in a bubble; so I continue to check my work with friends who I know will give me an honest opinion, rather than 'atta-boys', which do nothing but stroke the ego.
I find criticism to be a real touchy business, so there is small wonder that feelings can be hurt and tempers flare when there is so much at stake. As a suggestion, I prefer to meet with someone in person, and have them go over my project with me, so there is little misunderstanding. The written word is SO OFTEN misinterpreted, as there is no eye contact, no vocal inflections, no body language to let you know that the critic is really in your court.
-
Well put sir.
-
Acer,
I have not been bothered by anything I've read about my rifle. I haven't read anything that comes across even negative towards my project. Just recommendations that I still have wood to remove, and to handle originals. I have seen critiques go wrong in the past though, so I understand where you are coming from.
Maybe guys like me who seek your opinions can add that theyd like them in a PM, or just PM a specific person like yourself and ask if your be willing to critique.
I also agree with another poster that too many opinions can be confusing. I agree that a person to person critque would be great. Is it possible on the forum to have a list of members willing to meet with others for this purpose? Having their general locations within a state available so it's easy to find each other? Obviously on a volunteer basis. I'm sure not all would be comfortable giving critques. Like you said it's not for everyone.
I'll start, I'm in Fulton county NY, about an hour from Albany. Anyone nearby who would be willing to meet with me for some honest critiquing?
Greg
-
Greg, my statement about critique is not just for you, but for the whole ALR. So much of our work is really about the ART of the rifle, and we need feedback, we need reality checks. We all need critique. I should add that it's very hard to critique from photos. The internet is not an ideal venue for this kind of advice.
I'm in the Hudson Valley, about an hour south east of Albany, NY. I'd be happy to go over your work with you. Unfortunately, I don't have any antique jaegers to illustrate with. Send me a PM if you're interested.
Two shows that often have antique jaegers are the CLA, as mentioned above, and the 18th Century Artisan Show in Lewisburg PA.
-
Acer you said a mouthful about obtaining honest Critique's. Obtaining them is one of the toughest things in any field, and doubly so in the arts. As you alluded to what you mostly get are well meaning but useless ego fluffery. A knowledgeable person willing to provide an honest opinion and solid information is very difficult to come by.
dave
-
I put photos of my Jaeger up on the contemporary makers blog under the titlle "antique jaeger". If you go there and click on "web version" you can do a search. If you need any measurements I can do them for you. There are several jaegers on that blog worth looking at.
Mine is one of the few you will see taken apart.
-
my personal take is that the ONLY critique that will ever matter most is the creator's honest opinions of what they've just created. you WILL know when a project meets its criteria and when it fails, no matter how small a failure. if the piece you just created renders satisfactory bliss to yerself, there is no need to want external compliments, though it is a large part of human nature to seek from peer to expert approval.
"expert approval" can be such an oxymoron, too. sometimes mostly moron, unfortunately. the absolute nonsense about "era, period, and hysterical correctness" is just that - nonsense for the most part. there are some obvious things about guns and accoutrements that specify historical time frames, and lots that we'll never know about for sure. whilst there surely were/are styles relevant to eras, nothing was produced by a cookie cutter. not all gun makers were great craftsmen or artists, either. you want dead nuts correctness, copy from a known and verified original. it's gotten to the point where some self proclaimed correctness gurus can suck all the fun outta this whole hobby of 18th and 19th century muzzleloaders. life's far too short for that silliness.
so, to the OP - ya done real good and i do like yer gun ... enjoy the fruits of yer labor and make many good bangs of smoke 'n' fire! huzzah to you, sir!
-
While i don't totally disagree rfd, It is important on a site devoted to the preservation of the traditional American Longrifle and to helping to develop the skills and craftsmanship of the art and mystery of building those long rifles that we are able to display our work and receive meaningful and helpful feedback if we are to continue to grow and develop. It is easy for me to smoke my own exhaust... I need others honest and detailed opinions about my work to help me improve. Its not about praise.... although that is nice too... it is about learning from masters.. This site and the many very experienced and highly skillful artists who share their wisdom here has been of tremendous value to me and to many others. All of your cautions should be taken into account and in the final analysis after all the feedback is received it is still my right to make my own decisions... and sometimes the work product may suffer, hopefully I will learn from it..... I can learn faster with many helpers!! :o ;D ;D
-
rfd,
First, Thank you for the kind comments. Much of what you say is dead nuts true. You might have seen my comment that I believe I have what I call builder blindness. The rifle seems great to me. But, I also know I'm fairly new to this, so what I view as satisfactory, others can see flaws. I don't mind hearing others opinions, that's why I started this whole conversation.
I also agree that sometimes professional builders can take some of the fun out of this, be it as self proclaimed authorities or just set in there ways. I'm not saying that I believe people on this forum are like that. For the most part I believe it the opposite. That's why I posted here.
Your right about not all gunsmith were as talented as others back in the day. Today's guns are seen more for there art and perfection than for there usefulness. I'm the first to admit that I'm not of that school. Art and perfection is not my style. But to capture the feel of the originals is. That's why I seek critiques. My opinion is the original builders in the 18 century that weren't the top of their craft still made plenty of guns that we're used up and lost to us. The most talented, well they made them for the wealthy and they are what we have to study today. Incredible artistry and quality, but sat in a castle somewhere and collected dust. Not what Im interested in.
I feel like I'm starting to ramble so I'll wrap it up. I want the advice and comments of the builders here, I want to improve, but most of all I want to be proud of my build. Its not there yet, but I'm getting close.
Greg
-
you built it with your own two hands,man what an accomplishment! think about it,would you have thought you could pull it off a year,two ago.Be proud man,its your creation.Even being a novice I can see little oops in every thing I look at,that's life,bottom line be proud for how far you come!
-
Oh don't take me wrong. I'm very proud that I made a function, reliable rifle. I was speaking more to the architectural correctness. It's obviously not the normal jaeger that others would want to build. I think that's why I was attracted to it.
-
Oh don't take me wrong. I'm very proud that I made a function, reliable rifle. I was speaking more to the architectural correctness. It's obviously not the normal jaeger that others would want to build. I think that's why I was attracted to it.
don't sweat it - i can assure you that there were many Many MANY variations on the flintlock firearm theme since its early 17th century original creation. what you've created in design form could easily have been built, as is, "back in the day" and there is no proof to the contrary. so unless yer attempting to replicate a known historical firearm example, the only "correctness" will be in your mind's eye. what threads like this are good for is the craftsmanship part - the processes and tooling and etc. - learning the gun maker skills, not so much the design part.
-
I think your build is not very unlike the stout and sturdy rifles we know the Norwegian ski jaeger troops used from early 1700's. Take a peek at the M1711 (http://digitaltmuseum.no/search?query=m1711), they came in a short and a long version. Most are restocked and all were later converted to percussion (1841) and pillar breech and new bayonet (1851) hence the long model name M1711/41/51.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdms02.dimu.org%2Fimage%2F04S1TN71n7%3Fdimension%3D1200x1200&hash=d18e51607754b35f3164930049c4b732ce3b2101)
Courtesy of digitalmuseum.no
I have an old flintlock rifle from ca. 1720 by Swedish gunmaker Christof Schel with a German barrel dated 1648 (probably ex wheel-lock). The "rear end" is also very plump, both in height and width.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forum.svartkrutt.net%2Fimages%2Fuploaded%2Fimage745.jpg&hash=c1710497ff1534677166f1f671701388d1c0da0b)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forum.svartkrutt.net%2Fimages%2Fuploaded%2Fimage746.jpg&hash=cf8d9421d20779d13750881f84cbbe7ba5a575a6)
Enjoy your plank, happy hunting conquerordie :-)
-
my personal take is that the ONLY critique that will ever matter most is the creator's honest opinions of what they've just created. you WILL know when a project meets its criteria and when it fails, no matter how small a failure. if the piece you just created renders satisfactory bliss to yerself, there is no need to want external compliments, though it is a large part of human nature to seek from peer to expert approval.
"expert approval" can be such an oxymoron, too. sometimes mostly moron, unfortunately. the absolute nonsense about "era, period, and hysterical correctness" is just that - nonsense for the most part. there are some obvious things about guns and accoutrements that specify historical time frames, and lots that we'll never know about for sure. whilst there surely were/are styles relevant to eras, nothing was produced by a cookie cutter. not all gun makers were great craftsmen or artists, either. you want dead nuts correctness, copy from a known and verified original. it's gotten to the point where some self proclaimed correctness gurus can suck all the fun outta this whole hobby of 18th and 19th century muzzleloaders. life's far too short for that silliness.
so, to the OP - ya done real good and i do like yer gun ... enjoy the fruits of yer labor and make many good bangs of smoke 'n' fire! huzzah to you, sir!
This is a different forum than the one you moderate and you may not fully understand what we try to accomplish here. My goal here is to offer education from my experience of decades of building and my observation of all the originals I have had the opportunity to see. I actually learn things here on a very regular basis and am humbled by alot of the work I see here.
If someone here wants a critique it isn't fair to give him a pile of atta boys and let him blunder off into his next gun never knowing where or what he may not have quite right. Atta boys do nothing to improve your work. You'll get advice here from all kinds of people, from folks that have no idea what they are talking about to absolute experts on the subject. You really have to have the ability to sift it all out.
I know from your past posts you have issues with "Histerical correctness" as you put it. But, your "issue" may put you in the minority here as the main goal is to educate what is right and what isn't. If the attitude here was "build it how you want it's yer gun" you'd loose all the treasure of the people who actually know what these guns are supposed to look like and offer their help to those that are trying to improve what they are building. Once you loose those masters that hang out here you loose everything that makes this forum the jewel that it is. At then it wouldn't make any difference anymore and it would be just like all the other forums with the "Just get er done" attitude. It's all about education man, not just feel good "good ol boy" back slapping.
Sometimes I think we should put up a header somewhere: "CAUTION, YOU MAY BE OFFENDED BY READING SOME POSTS". ;D
-
BTW, the gun pictured just above is no larger than it's barrel, buttplate and trigger pull dictate. No "extra" wood has been left.
-
If you are trying to make a bench copy of the subject Jaeger you have show as the inspiration of your build. Then I would agree you could improve on your carving skills. But if you are asking if the Jaeger you have built looks like a Jaeger should ? I think your Jaeger looks Great . Sporting Jaegers were not built any two just alike. So many things differ, such as, LOP , lock style /trigger style/ fit of cheek rest /and wrist size/barrel lenth /sight choice, carving or none, well you get it, all within the same builders shop. Sure it is not hard to recognize the work from some of the old Jaeger rifle builders , or one of his apprentice ,and even less trouble to identify a Jaeger built in a certain region or country. But until someone can produce evidince that there exist ( three or even two) - (period built Jaeger rifles that are just alike) than there is no wrong modern built Jaeger . Back to , If you think it is what you invision a Jaeger should be , It is right. The only Jaeger rifles that were built to a pattern were the Military Jaegers . It is not hard to find ,two /three/ or even in some Models more. That are built as close as possible to each other. Still most are marked with assembly numbers because parts were hand fit and will not exchange without a re-fit. If someone can show us that the no two alike idea is wrong . I would love to see the proof . I would like to thank the Admin for the chance to explain my opinion about this topic. Sincerely Ron Wehmeyer
Have you done much reading on this subject? I'm interested to know your source material. Do you have any books you could recommend so I can better understand this? I think I may be somewhat naive on this subject.....
-
Ron,
I wasn't going for a bench copy or anything, just the overall design of the stock. My carving is in its infant stage compared to others, so its just one of the areas I continue to improve in.
I think Mike made the distinction of contemporary build vs. HC builds. My personal goal is to be more HC THAN contemporary, that is why I seek people's opinions. Look at the beautiful jaeger members like Heinz and jager justen have just produced for me to study, albeit in pictures. I want my jaeger to look and feel like that. My rifle is seen as HC by some and contemporary by others. Both sides have given me their reason why, and both have valid arguments. I just haven't decided for myself which one it is. If it's not HC to me, then I'm probably going to break out the ole rasps again and do this gun for the third time. Best I can say working on the same,stock three times is cost effective ;D
Greg
-
My goal here is to offer education from my experience of decades of building and my observation of all the originals I have had the opportunity to see. I actually learn things here on a very regular basis and am humbled by alot of the work I see here.
If someone here wants a critique it isn't fair to give him a pile of atta boys and let him blunder off into his next gun never knowing where or what he may not have quite right. Atta boys do nothing to improve your work. You'll get advice here from all kinds of people, from folks that have no idea what they are talking about to absolute experts on the subject. You really have to have the ability to sift it all out.
I know from your past posts you have issues with "Histerical correctness" as you put it. But, your "issue" may put you in the minority here as the main goal is to educate what is right and what isn't. If the attitude here was "build it how you want it's yer gun" you'd loose all the treasure of the people who actually know what these guns are supposed to look like and offer their help to those that are trying to improve what they are building. Once you loose those masters that hang out here you loose everything that makes this forum the jewel that it is. At that it would make any difference anymore and it would be just like all the other forums with the "Just get er done" attitude. It's all about education man, not just feel good good ol boy back slapping.
Sometimes I think we should put up a header somewhere: "CAUTION, YOU MAY BE OFFENDED BY READING SOME POSTS". ;D
Well said.
-
Ron,
I wasn't going for a bench copy or anything, just the overall design of the stock. My carving is in its infant stage compared to others, so its just one of the areas I continue to improve in.
I think Mike made the distinction of contemporary build vs. HC builds. My personal goal is to be more HC THAN contemporary, that is why I seek people's opinions. Look at the beautiful jaeger members like Heinz and jager justen have just produced for me to study, albeit in pictures. I want my jaeger to look and feel like that. My rifle is seen as HC by some and contemporary by others. Both sides have given me their reason why, and both have valid arguments. I just haven't decided for myself which one it is. If it's not HC to me, then I'm probably going to break out the ole rasps again and do this gun for the third time. Best I can say working on the same,stock three times is cost effective ;D
Greg
I'd just leave that one the way it is and move on to the next project. If I re did all of the guns I have built untill I thought I had corrected all the mistakes I'd still be on my first gun. ;D
-
I'd like to make a final point. In my opinion this is not an "elitists" forum as some would suggest. It is a place where like minded individuals exchange information to further the correct methods of building and styles/schools of 18th century firearms. Nothing more, nothing less. Ask for information and you will receive, free of charge from those that may well be some of the best builders in the modern world. Some information you will like and some you won't.
This is a real gem of an opportunity that many of us never had untill relatively recently. I for one am thankful for the opportunity to participate and learn.
-
If you are trying to make a bench copy of the subject Jaeger you have show as the inspiration of your build. Then I would agree you could improve on your carving skills. But if you are asking if the Jaeger you have built looks like a Jaeger should ? I think your Jaeger looks Great . Sporting Jaegers were not built any two just alike. So many things differ, such as, LOP , lock style /trigger style/ fit of cheek rest /and wrist size/barrel lenth /sight choice, carving or none, well you get it, all within the same builders shop. Sure it is not hard to recognize the work from some of the old Jaeger rifle builders , or one of his apprentice ,and even less trouble to identify a Jaeger built in a certain region or country. But until someone can produce evidince that there exist ( three or even two) - (period built Jaeger rifles that are just alike) than there is no wrong modern built Jaeger . Back to , If you think it is what you invision a Jaeger should be , It is right. The only Jaeger rifles that were built to a pattern were the Military Jaegers . It is not hard to find ,two /three/ or even in some Models more. That are built as close as possible to each other. Still most are marked with assembly numbers because parts were hand fit and will not exchange without a re-fit. If someone can show us that the no two alike idea is wrong . I would love to see the proof . I would like to thank the Admin for the chance to explain my opinion about this topic. Sincerely Ron Wehmeyer
Shumway's Vol. 1 is a good start. He also did a book of nothing but jeagers, another good resource. Above all, look at originals in person. BTW, I am no "expert", there are far more knowledgeable people, I suspect they just don't want to participate in the debate, which is understandable.
-
I'd like to make a final point. In my opinion this is not an "elitists" forum as some would suggest. It is a place where like minded individuals exchange information to further the correct methods of building and styles/schools of 18th century firearms. Nothing more, nothing less. Ask for information and you will receive, free of charge from those that may well be some of the best builders in the modern world. Some information you will like and some you won't.
This is a real gem of an opportunity that many of us never had untill relatively recently. I for one am thankful for the opportunity to participate and learn.
Yes.
-
Here you go. probably the best info resource on the subject. "Stienschloss-Jagerbuchsen" by Erhard Wolf available from Jim Chambers. Expensive but well worth the investment.
-
Greg,
Back when I was young and foolish I read everything I could get my hands on about flint guns. Much of what I read was written by folks who were extolling the virtues of the American Longrifle and, apparently, the authors thought the best way was to contrast the American guns of the late 18th century with the predecessor guns of the 16th and 17th century Europe, generally, and the German lands more specifically. Those references described the German Jaeger rifles as "clumsy, heavy, chubby, short" amongst other less complimentary terms.
Then while on a work-related trip to Europe I had the opportunity to spend a weekend in Copenhagen, during which I visited the Tojusmuseet, the Danish National Arms Museum. I lost no time in making a bee-line to the hall of flintlock guns.
HOLY GUACAMOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There, in one room, had to be several hundred jaeger-style rifles. I found that virtually everything I had read from all those books and articles was WRONG! None of the guns I saw were clumsy. They were all trim and excellently designed. Yes, the butt plates are wide. (If you are shooting a 66 caliber ball in a 7 pound rifle it lets you know you pulled the trigger! That wide butt-plate makes the recoil tolerable.) But moving forward, the stocks necked down to a slender wrist. The stocks then flared out to support their respective locks. The lock-plate flats were scarcely a 1/16" wider than the lock plate and the locks seemed to be let in hardly a 1/16" inch. The side-plates flats swelled out symmetrically. But the wood had been taken down to the point where it seemed as if the wood was only filling in the spaces between the metal parts, AND NO MORE. Then the stocks necked right down to form a slender, tight wrap around the swamped barrel. Usually the thickness of the wood along-side the barrel was less than 3/32". The stocks then flared at the muzzle. The muzzle-caps, some horn, some brass and some steel, were all flared. The ramrod was tucked tight under the barrel. I could really see how trim these guns were when I looked at them from the top or bottom. The only flat surfaces on the whole gun stock were the lock flats. Everything else was rounded, trim and often concave. Profile photographs can be VERY misleading.
So, now that I am just plain foolish I realize that the typical jaeger rifle was NOT heavy, ponderous, clumsy, clunky and chubby. Even the strictly military issue guns were lean and trim. An authentic jaeger rifle is trim, nimble, quick on point. It handles like a Model 94 Winchester!
I hope my recollections of my experience in Denmark 20 years ago helps you as you explore the art and craft of the jaeger rifle in your next build.
Best Regards,
John Cholin
-
I think I may be somewhat naive on this subject.....
Anybody else have a problem visualizing this ??? There may be a lot of adjectives that can be used for Mike Brooks, but I don't think "naïve" is one of them. ;)
-
Excellent observations, Long John.
-
Greg,
Back when I was young and foolish I read everything I could get my hands on about flint guns. Much of what I read was written by folks who were extolling the virtues of the American Longrifle and, apparently, the authors thought the best way was to contrast the American guns of the late 18th century with the predecessor guns of the 16th and 17th century Europe, generally, and the German lands more specifically. Those references described the German Jaeger rifles as "clumsy, heavy, chubby, short" amongst other less complimentary terms.
Then while on a work-related trip to Europe I had the opportunity to spend a weekend in Copenhagen, during which I visited the Tojusmuseet, the Danish National Arms Museum. I lost no time in making a bee-line to the hall of flintlock guns.
HOLY GUACAMOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There, in one room, had to be several hundred jaeger-style rifles. I found that virtually everything I had read from all those books and articles was WRONG! None of the guns I saw were clumsy. They were all trim and excellently designed. Yes, the butt plates are wide. (If you are shooting a 66 caliber ball in a 7 pound rifle it lets you know you pulled the trigger! That wide butt-plate makes the recoil tolerable.) But moving forward, the stocks necked down to a slender wrist. The stocks then flared out to support their respective locks. The lock-plate flats were scarcely a 1/16" wider than the lock plate and the locks seemed to be let in hardly a 1/16" inch. The side-plates flats swelled out symmetrically. But the wood had been taken down to the point where it seemed as if the wood was only filling in the spaces between the metal parts, AND NO MORE. Then the stocks necked right down to form a slender, tight wrap around the swamped barrel. Usually the thickness of the wood along-side the barrel was less than 3/32". The stocks then flared at the muzzle. The muzzle-caps, some horn, some brass and some steel, were all flared. The ramrod was tucked tight under the barrel. I could really see how trim these guns were when I looked at them from the top or bottom. The only flat surfaces on the whole gun stock were the lock flats. Everything else was rounded, trim and often concave. Profile photographs can be VERY misleading.
So, now that I am just plain foolish I realize that the typical jaeger rifle was NOT heavy, ponderous, clumsy, clunky and chubby. Even the strictly military issue guns were lean and trim. An authentic jaeger rifle is trim, nimble, quick on point. It handles like a Model 94 Winchester!
I hope my recollections of my experience in Denmark 20 years ago helps you as you explore the art and craft of the jaeger rifle in your next build.
Best Regards,
John Cholin
You put all that far better than I did! ;)
I wouldn't recommend one of these Germanic rifles to anybody that didn't have a lot of skill under their belts and quite a bit of time handling originals in person. It would be a far better idea to practice skills with a gun style with much simpler architecture. Once you have your basic skills in hand then by all means jump right into the Euro zone! In my opinion of course.
-
Boy would that be a sight to see all those jagers.You didn't just happen to sneak one of those out when no one was looking did you?
-
Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....
With regards to your rifle, not bad for a first timer, need to improve some and that happens with doing more. Nice thing is the more 'mistakes' you make the better and quicker you learn (supposed to be that way, but I'm somewhat slow).
The cheeckpiece side needs help....looks like there is enough wood on there to re-shape it into a nice gentle sweep and undo those harsh 90 degree angles...but that's just me. I'd also undo as best I could the carving detail... it really isn't needed, but that would take a bit more experiance, which is gained by doing and making mistakes (viscious circle).
If you can, depending on your location, visit Friendship and hang out at the gunmakers hall. Watch and talk to Dick Miller, look at his cigarbox of tools, handle them, ask about them, watch how he uses them. Dick is a very generous person and is so open to questions and really appreciates interest in the subject matter. Go to Dixons if you can and do the same.
Put this one aside for a later time, build and learn, then go back to it if you wish and see if you can make some improvements....I know it sounds perverse, but if you take the approach of thinking: "It's jsut a peice of wood and there's a lot out there", then a lot of anxiety goes right out the door, it makes building easier to do and a lot more enjoyable.
Getting back to Dick Miller....I would ask him where in heaven's sake did you get these tools? His reply was: I made them....the light came on! Most of his tools are remnents of needle files reshaped, tiny little home made chissels in a walnut shell, all sorts of things. He had to make tools to do the carving and work he was doing. See, there is not any one source for tooling to do some of this, so you need to use your imagination to make some of these. When you get to that point, the fun really starts.
Good luck with future stuff.....
-
Gaeckle,
Thanks for the ideas. I think you and many others who have contacted me are right. I'll probably leave it for now. I see things that I improved this second go around, and more things that I still need to work on. I can't let this become an obsession, or I'll never finish a gun, and more importantly I'll probably stop enjoying it. Like others have said, enjoy it, learn from it, and start another one. I will start collecting parts for another. I believe I have found my place to view and handle an original. I will probably use this piece as my inspiration for what I build next.
Greg