Finding a restful balance between tradition and preference

[heinz]

I think that "fantasy" gun is an unfortunate term that has crept into our muzzleloading vocabulary and carries a very negative connotation.  I think creativity is a great thing and a plus for promoting the art form.  I find it amusing that folks will use urethane finishes, aniline dyes, cold bluing formulations, and even Krylon paint but become judgemental about a Siler lock on a Southern rifle.

There were a lot of things done in the 18th and 19th centuries that were very creative and few examples have survived today.  A trip through a really good European arms museum is an eye-opener.  Painted buttstocks were a reality.  So were pierced buttstocks.

If you want to replicate a rifle from a particular school, that is a fine thing and does require you to work within certain boundaries.  But blending schools or styles within the general bounds of good taste should not be denigrated as a "Fantasy" rifle.  Or maybe we should just accept fantasy as an acceptable term.  I like Ian Pratt rifles, I confess I am somewhere on the waiting list.

[rich pierce]

The term “fantasy gun” has been around enough that it’s common usage. I don’t use the term anymore  because it upsets some folks whose work I admire greatly. But I don’t assume that there is any bad intent when I see it used.

I like “new school” or “Woodbury school” when that is appropriate but maybe there are better terms. Few catch-all’s are really useful.

I did see a blaze orange, space-age looking flintlock in the judging area at Dixon’s one year. It was nicely done. I think “futuristic” would fit that one.

[Bob McBride]

'Fantasy rifle', which I never thought of as a slur, outside putting Laverne & Shirley on a patchbox, came up because the OP opined on making his own lock plate style and the discordant balance to him between the lock and washer on a southern mountain rifle. Not because some folks like BB and EK like to build incredibly fabulous frontier-made parts guns. Regardless of 'connotation' if he put a sweet pierced sterling silver side plate depicting Saint Peter and the Basilica from a proper English Fowling Piece on his TN poorboy because he thought it looked good opposite a Late Ketland, he'd get a lot of questions about what he was thinking from a lot of guys on this site. He'd also get a lot of attaboys from the head-patters, no doubt. But some of you who say "fantasy is a slur" would be rolling your eyes. My point was, learn to play the guitar, then learn to riff. Or just riff. Either is A-ok, but riffing later is better. I don't think "build whatever you want" is very helpful to someone just getting his mind around all this, who asks, on a site dedicated to the study and appreciation of the American Longrifle, if and how he should deviate.

[Jim Kibler]

It goes without saying that if the goal is to just please yourself, the choices are pretty easy.  If you would like your work to be accepted, admired etc. by the larger group of knowledgable collectors or students of the longrifle, it must be made to at least some standards.  Pushing boundaries or trying new things is great, but it typically doesn't work well unless you have spent considerable time studying and building rifles like they originally were.

Jim

[Ian Pratt]

people who throw glass houses shouldn't live in rocks

[P.Bigham]

?

[Mike Lyons]

Several gunmakers have gained the respect to do whatever they want.  Most of them are a wealth of information and know the roots well.  I would venture to say that they started their adventure studying the history and architecture and then realized that they have a special artistic talent.  The same thing happened way back when.  If you study the Kuntz family at all,  you’ll see that several of their guns went out of the box.  The swivel breach Jacob Kuntz made is a good example.  Very very few gunmakers can pull it off.
I personally like the traditional route and could not imagine skipping the learning phase.  Enjoying the history of these guns is more than half the fun.  I also  think that newcomers such as myself need to stay in that phase until they understand the basics and respect the gunmakers who have graduated to having the ability to do their own artistic  thing and pull it off.

[Ian Pratt]

Bob I most respectfully disagree with everything you just said - other than the parts you were kidding about.

The way I see it, evolution is growth and change. I would say that the three most apparent ways that the longrifle is currently evolving are through the shifting of it's role in society, the pushing of it's artistic horizons by strange individuals with strange tools and strange ideas, and the skilled use of CNC to produce gun kits and parts. The application of this technology to making guns / gun parts is a kind of evolution in itself; the impact that the current offerings are already having on the gun building world and people's future expectations are NOTEWORTHY (translation - huge).
Nevertheless, a flintlock gun is no longer a state of the art weapon in comparison to modern guns, and correspondingly the reasons for owning one have changed. There are still plenty of us who hunt with them (pretty much always my first choice when I hit the woods) but they're currently not your best option for home defense. So in most cases I see the longrifle's modern role as being primarily a tangible connection to the past and a functional piece of art...another change. 
Artistically speaking we are living in some very cool times for the art of the longrifle. Having the luxury to look back across the ages , builders are putting together some pretty intriguing stuff based on fresh concepts that sometimes expand the parameters which define the longrifle.

 RMann, your comment on things looking right when they are right has potential to open a gigantic can of Golden Worms.  Much of the time things look right because we have learned a standard to compare our work to.  I believe that the creative thinker learns the standards, then learns which ones to abandon - and when.  I think you've been getting some good advice from those who suggest studying more originals of the type of gun you are using for your starting point . There are certainly more options for simple sideplates that might be a better fit to your eye.

[Ian Pratt]

Aww  dang it Bob, your post that I just replied to has disappeared !  I didn't quote it my post unfortunately. Anyhow, I'm going to leave mine up because I think it still pertains to what's being discussed

FWIW , Bob had essentially wondered why I considered the longrifle to still be in evolution. Was a thoughtfully written post, wish it was still here !

[Bob McBride]

Bob I most respectfully disagree with everything you just said - other than the parts you were kidding about.

The way I see it, evolution is growth and change. I would say that the three most apparent ways that the longrifle is currently evolving are through the shifting of it's role in society, the pushing of it's artistic horizons by strange individuals with strange tools and strange ideas, and the skilled use of CNC to produce gun kits and parts. The application of this technology to making guns / gun parts is a kind of evolution in itself; the impact that the current offerings are already having on the gun building world and people's future expectations are NOTEWORTHY (translation - huge).
Nevertheless, a flintlock gun is no longer a state of the art weapon in comparison to modern guns, and correspondingly the reasons for owning one have changed. There are still plenty of us who hunt with them (pretty much always my first choice when I hit the woods) but they're currently not your best option for home defense. So in most cases I see the longrifle's modern role as being primarily a tangible connection to the past and a functional piece of art...another change. 
Artistically speaking we are living in some very cool times for the art of the longrifle. Having the luxury to look back across the ages , builders are putting together some pretty intriguing stuff based on fresh concepts that sometimes expand the parameters which define the longrifle.

 RMann, your comment on things looking right when they are right has potential to open a gigantic can of Golden Worms.  Much of the time things look right because we have learned a standard to compare our work to.  I believe that the creative thinker learns the standards, then learns which ones to abandon - and when.  I think you've been getting some good advice from those who suggest studying more originals of the type of gun you are using for your starting point . There are certainly more options for simple sideplates that might be a better fit to your eye.

In the end, I did too Ian, and so I deleted it. I found we were talking about two different things and that there was nothing to disagree with in what you were saying. Jim said what I was trying to as you did in this post. Learning the standards is the only way to know how to deviate and when in any meaningful artistic way.

Sorry, Ian, as usual my thoughts were evolving as we spoke.

[RMann]

Boy, I just saw this 2nd page!   I am just learning to navigate this site.... but what thought provoking and encouraging advice and direction from you all!  So, thanks all around.  To Ian's point, yes, the forms we are used to seeing dictates what "looks right" and shuts the door to possible variants or even improvements.  But as a beginner, I appreciate the stress to understand and emulate the historical "vocabulary", and those constraints are even fun as I learn the history of the various areas and builders.  And at the same time I don't have to take myself too seriously, and If a little branching out pleases me - I'm at peace.  But I clearly like following the tracks that have already been laid, and you all have opened up more examples than the limited kits I have seen in the catalogues.  And I don't have the ambition to be a "riffer" even as I appreciate it in others.

[B.Barker]

I think you need to know how the stocks were shaped also. I'm not talking profile you can see that in a book. If you see original guns in person you will notice how stocks are shaped from different schools and different time periods. That is something hard to see in photo's you need to see in person. Wrist shapes and forearm shapes can differ quite a bit. You can learn what you like and don't like.