Difficulty question.

[Rt5403]

So sitting here bored and this question popped into my head. Since we have so many experienced and talented gun builders on the forum I thought I would pose this question just for discussion. Out of the different styles and schools of rifle, which would you consider the most difficult to build and get correct versus the most simple. Just thought it would be interesting to hear you thoughts.

[smart dog]

Hi,
So much depends on your level of experience and knowledge of any of those schools.  From my perspective, Lehigh Valley rifles would be the most challenging because they can turn out very awkward looking and rather uncomfortable to shoot when shaped poorly and the nuances for getting them right are in some respects obvious and in others, subtle.  For me "Golden Age" period Lancaster rifles are the easiest and least subtly nuanced.  However, none of this applies to decoration because that is much more individualistic even within schools.  To my mind the works of the 2 Isaacs, Haines and Berlin, are at the top of the heap for difficult carving decoration.  John Fleeger comes to my mind with respect to challenging engraving.  For easiest to decorate?  Just about any American muzzleloading rifle after 1830 or so.

With respect to all guns, British and French fowlers, rifles, muskets, and pistols from the 18th and early 19th centuries are very difficult to get right and do justice to. That stems from a lack of knowledge but also a lack of correct parts.  It is much easier to find correct parts for an 18th century American long rifle than it is for an 18th century British or French fowler.

dave       

[Lucky R A]

        I would have to agree with Dave,  Lehigh Valley guns area a whole different game.  You can read all the subtile details that the "experts" talk about and try to apply them and still come up short.  Allen Martin mastered this school early on, so is a good source of inspiration.  Again I agree that John Fleeger did some of the best engraving,  He was such a good engraver that he thought he could make money.  I am told that he was arrested for counterfiting.    The two carvers that Dave mentioned were very accomplished.  A lot of the earlier work on Jaeger rifles just hast to been seen and studied for an appreciation of carving excellence.  Only when you get you hands on some of the better originals and really study them will you fully appreciate how good some of the early builders were.  I know this will cause and uproar, but most southern mountain rifles were made by blacksmiths who also made guns.  They are generally functional pieces usually devoid of real artistic merit having been build for people of limited means.  These guns are among some of the easiest to build.
Just my opinions
Ron

[HIB]

Gentlemen,     There is another way to address this question.  And that is from an availability aspect.   Any builder working from photos has his or her hands tied behind their back from the 'get go'.   A builder who networks with a collector and can have an actual original in their hands gains the obvious advantage of observation.   A builder who connects with a collector who is willing to loan a gun for longer than a limited inspection has hit the 'Mother Load'.   It requires hours upon hours of touch and feel to even begin to recognize the various subtleties suggested above.   Getting the loan . . . . .  is the hard part.   Getting the visit isn't that easy either.

In order for a collector to open his collection to a contemporary craftsman the builder must first demonstrate and prove he is a student of the trade.   The builder must prove to the collector he wishes to master the mysteries of the old gunsmith.  This is only accomplished thru interaction and by developing a kinship and trust.

A builders first responsibility to himself is to visit as many public museums where an original or group of originals may be on display.  A second effort can sometimes avail itself thru visiting a local or nearby antique store with a few originals for sale.  The best 'time spent' is to get invited to an affiliate gun show arranged by the KRA, CLA, ALR, local collectors club or combination thereof.  However,  this last suggestion requires a full understanding of the 'Rules of Conduct'.   A slip up regarding the rules can quickly end any attempt to arrange a collector visit and further 'hands on' observation.

Of further importance is a through knowledge of all up-dated reference books available.   The 1960's and earlier books still hold some value, but the most recent editions provide additional research material which in turn provides discussion points used by most of todays collectors.

One final thought:   Todays builder has a plate full of options . . . . full kit . . . . .partial kit . . . . Inlet barrel . . . . scratch build.  A true student of the mysteries of 18th century gunsmithing, in my opinion, must have the final option seriously in mind in order to even be considered a student in the first place.   And it is the student that will impress the collector . . . . . and possibly open the door to the gun room and hours of observation of an admired old master.          HIB

 

[rich pierce]

I think every category of longrifle or even plains rifle is considered hard to build by those who master that style, because they know what the original look and feel like, and can “see right off” where many builds closely resemble originals of that type, but miss the mark here, and over here, and over there. The best builders of Hawken plains rifles would posit that building a believable J&S or Samuel Hawken rifle is no mean feat, even compared to an Armstrong or an Isaac Berlin, or what have you.

One thing that I see commonly is that builders often apply what they’ve been taught are “universal rules” for architecture when building longrifles. This can result in all their work looking at least vaguely the same.

I see a lot of high cheekpieces for example and that flowed, in my opinion, from one picture in one book for builders. It was a very fine Earl Lanning rifle. Whenever I see that cheekpiece style with the arc toward the buttplate I think “yep, he took that one picture to heart.”  It’s beautiful but does not belong on every rifle. I’ve blathered but intend to say that every build you want to resemble a particular group of originals will break some rules you’ve been taught to always follow.




Look at the buttplates on Fainot’s guns. They are “wrong” and would get a pile of demerits by judges of a contemporary build that actually resembled Fainot’s work.

[smart dog]

Rich wrote:
"One thing that I see commonly is that builders often apply what they’ve been taught are “universal rules” for architecture when building longrifles. This can result in all their work looking at least vaguely the same."

I agree Rich.  That is why I believe the "golden mean" is a great rule meant to be violated often.  Just look at George Eister or John Noll.

dave

[smallpatch]

Lehigh for sure.  Not a straight line anywhere.
That said, my favorite style, and type to build.
When done right…..so sexy!

[alacran]

I think that a most difficult build, would be one that does not try to emulate any one particular builder's or "school" style, but synthesizes all those styles into a style which is unique. Unique, and at the same time be considered appropriate to the period.

[Nordnecker]

I am not an accomplished builder, but I did have the opportunity to build a bench copy of one rifle. The owner loaned me the original gun for almost a year. Even though it was a tremendous help, I had to make compromises with the trigger guard, butt plate and lock. This changed the architecture slightly. So, even when you have the gun on your bench, it’s still not easy.

[Goo]

They are all difficult if you want them to pass muster from the critical eye.....

[oldtravler61]

  I agree with the comments on Lehigh rifles and my favorite Soddies. They just got a few quirks that looking at book's and videos don't show them. Unless you are really familiar with them. Remember my attempt at a Lehigh.
 Shower the gun to a few people who I thought were really in the KNOW about them. Until I showed it to someone who really does.. He said grab yourself a drink over their and now we'll talk about your rifle...lol.....

[smallpatch]

OT,
You must have been talking to Mr Martin!

[mikeyfirelock]

The difficult part is getting all the surfaces to complement each other…no matter what the style….straight lines should go somewhere and direct your focus to another feature. Curved surfaces should probably be parabolic, and probably gently evolve to a straight or flat surface.  Any style can be difficult if the surfaces cannot complement each other. 

[oldtravler61]

  Smallpatch yep..! Amazing what Allen knows....