In a recent thread
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=25265.15, a very typical sort of debate erupted on techniques, level of surface finish needed or expected, HC tooling, etc. Some point of these basic debates comes up every week or two. I think most of us understand them well enough, but I do wonder sometimes what a newer builder might think of it.
I suspect that some builders (especially newer builders) are simply trying to learn enough to put together a safe, functional, visually attractive rifle. They may not yet have developed any particular opinion about tools, historical correctness (HC), etc. We can call this view #(1). I wonder if new builders who visit the forum recognize that there are least four other major philosophical perspectives that appear in the replies in various threads. (I list these other four as I understand them as #s 2, 3, 4 and 5.)
(2) Some members on here could be called “extreme traditionalists” (meant as a complement). HC is of primary concern to them. They even push themselves to use only traditional tools, intentionally seeking out or building for themselves a toolset that would be completely at home in an 18th c shop. When describing their work, they are careful to differentiate pieces built with modern tools from pieces built with only traditional tools (that is, with no electricity and only 18th c technology). (These builders generally strive for a very holistic control of historical correctness in design, carving, engraving, etc. as well as in tool and materials choice.)
(3) Some others want to see an HC design and surface finish, but are content to use modern tools to get through much of the grunt work (if for no other reason than to stave off carpal tunnel syndrome). But they then switch to traditional tools for final surface prep. For example, many in this category prefer to see a final surface with no evidence of electric (circular) tool marks, and so they prepare the final surface with only hand-driven (generally linear) tool marks. (These builders can be also be keenly interested in HC design, carving, etc. In an effort to achieve an HC surface, they may choose, for example, to avoid sandpaper in preference for scraping, etc.)
(4) Still others are not concerned so much about HC, but nevertheless see the American Longrifle as an art form. But for them it is a
still evolving art form. It is a somewhat predefined canvas, but the tools that they might choose to use on it are more open to interpretation. I think that in most cases, builders working in this genre know full well that they are going beyond HC in their choices. They don’t see “workmanlike” as a holistic approach to be mastered, but as a primitive albeit historical state to be pushed beyond. They may think of the form of the longrifle as being relatively fixed, but they imagine taking that form as they understand it to some higher degree of perfection. Some builders in this category might work within the style of some old builder, such as Dickert or Rupp, for example, but they intentionally open up the tool set, with the goal of “perfecting craftsmanship” beyond what Dickert or Rupp could have possibly achieved with the tools that were available in the 18th c.
(5) There is also another category, perhaps somewhat related to (4) above, in which the builder takes the old form of the longrifle as his starting point, and from there expands outward into new and contemporary “longrifle art”. Perhaps builders in this category would describe themselves as taking the art of the Longrifle to a new level. They don’t see the form of the Longrifle as fixed at all, and so eagerly explore tooling, techniques, and finishes that might be applied to the flintlock canvas as they develop it. HC is not an issue for them, as they are quite intentionally producing
contemporary work. Builders working in this manner might choose to stay with the general architecture of a particular “school”, but otherwise develop the style, carving, etc. as they wish to see it developed. Their work may or may not also be “perfectionist” in nature, but the primary focus is in the artistic development.
This is not to say that all of us stay only within one or another of these tracks (although clearly some do). It’s probably common for our philosophies to evolve somewhat over time, and the direction we take probably says something about our personalities. And some of us probably vacillate quite a lot, depending on what we are working on at the moment! Some of us have strong preferences. Some of us are more nostalgic than others. (I tend to be one of the more nostalgic type.) But I really do think each of these various views has a lot to offer.
Anyway, those are some thoughts I just wanted to throw out there. I hope they generate some useful discussion.
Whetrock
