Schroyer

[BarryE]

I’m going to let this sit for a bit and look at it again.  With a few additions, I think it is close.

[Mike Brooks]

Cool beans

[smart dog]

Nice Barry!
I love that design!

dave

[Jim Filipski]

Looks like you are right on!

[Keith Zimmerman]

Ill have to stop over this weekend and check it out.  Very nice.

[smylee grouch]

Schroyer has always been one of my favorites and yours really does look right on. Nice work. 

[J. Talbert]

Definitely close!

Is it just the camera angle or could it be that the top two scrolls are a little wonkie?
I don’t know… just caught my eye.

Looks like it’ll be really nice.

Jeff

[BarryE]

Jeff, the one on the left is true to the original, but the one on the right needs some work.  Good eye.

[Marcruger]

A great way to look for errors is to look at the design in the mirror.  Any error will jump out, as your eye is seeing it twice as bad as it really is. 

In other words, an error is as compared to the baseline, or where it should be.  Looking at it in a mirror takes it from where it is, past the baseline, to the opposite.  Double the error.  A plastic surgeon explained to me why a person with a facial abnormality appears startlingly off when you see them in a mirror. 

Hope this is helpful. 

It appears you are positioning it where the original pattern was on the buttstock.  To my eye, they both look too high, crowding the buttplate return, and leaving a lot of bare wood below. 

God Bless,   Marc

[Ky-Flinter]

Definitely close!

Is it just the camera angle or could it be that the top two scrolls are a little wonkie?
I don’t know… just caught my eye.

Looks like it’ll be really nice.

Jeff

I agree with Jeff.  He has a good eye for these things, but they don't need much, just a little tweeking.  My suggested "tweeking" points are in the photo below.  Please excuse my shaky mouse hand.



Your layout is very good and true to the original.  Hope this helps.

Ron

[Preacher Dave]

Nice! I think your layout is a very good reflection of the carving shown in the picture of the model rifle. After some of the other comments were made with suggestions for "tweeks", I was able to spot the upper scrolls that could use the adjustment, but not until others commented and identified them. 

[Scott Bumpus]

Yea,  didn’t put enough tweak on it. I seen it right off.    Haha

[BarryE]

It’s tweaked!  More to follow.

[flinchrocket]

That huge flat spot in the upper left corner would drive me nuts. The rest looks great.

[Scott Bumpus]

Looks like a really good build coming along. Looking forward to following along on this one.

[alacran]

BarryE, very difficult to turn a 2-dimensional photo into a 3-dimensional object. Don't worry about all the knit picking. Really the original is wrong?
@!*% the torpedoes, start carving.

[Jim Kibler]

If your goal is to create a version with a similar quality / sophistication level as the original, I think you've done a pretty good job.  From more of an academic standpoint, there are quite a number of areas that could be improved.  These are mainly shapes of curves, flow etc.  In the end, this will certainly change the feel of the rifle, for good or bad, depending on expectations and preferences.  Just some things to consider...

Jim

[BarryE]

Jim,  the goal is to reproduce, as closely as I can, the original carving.  I only have photos of this one to work with, and have to “fill in some blanks”.  While there are some things that, if designed from the ground up, could be improved by yourself and many others here, I was asked to try to stay close to this design.  I am a rookie compared to a whole bunch of folks whose work appears on this forum, and I can appreciate the artistic abilities of those makers.  I am, however hopelessly enamored of the work of the old masters.  However much their work could be improved on to bring it closer to perfection as defined today,  I like what they did and try to achieve their feeling, no offense to anyone else.

[Jim Kibler]

I think you've captured the feel of the original very well.  Nice work!

Jim