Fantasy Rifles

[smshea]

 I'm in the planing stages of a rifle for a fella that wants a gun with certain  regional traits but having nothing on it that screams of a particular maker from that area. A rifle from an "unknown maker" if you will.  A completely "Made up" gun with only vague school Identification.
 He called it a Fantasy Rifle, a term we use often enough but It got me thinking  about what other folks definition of that term is. I was hoping for comment as well as some pictures from others that might not otherwise ever get seen due to our HC/PC nature.  I know EK has done some of this type of thing....how about others?

[jwh1947]

Scotty, OK, I submit the following facts;

Last year a "dude" from the "Hill" of Harrisburg asked me to make a "superfly Kentucky."  Bill Shipman, are you tuned in, too?  More living proof that there is variety in the old gun business.  Here's what he got.

A true hog leg. hockey stick variety of butt, reminiscent of a late "Ruppy" Lehigh, married to a chunk of wood that looks crude...similar to what we'all refer to as a "Virginia Gun."  Then I added silver do-dads all over, and a few big rhinestones right in the spot where I would usually do some carving.  

Then, modeled after Catherine the Great's Jaeger, now housed in the Smithsonian, I added a satin cheek-piece, stuffed with down, and used carpet tacks to set it in.  Then I put a zircon 4-carat fake diamond  right in the center of the main motif where a patchbox would normally go, and dolled the rest to look like a box.  Then I applied some crisp Kwanzaa symbolism, approved by our symbolism gurus to be the "real stuff."

He paid less than 5 figures, and sports his new rod with pride.  Working on new orders as we speak.   Hope this helps.  Wayne

[northmn]

I've done it all the time.  Most of what I have made is Lancaster using matching Lancaster butplate and triggerguards.  Typical patchboxes and so forth.  Just do not copy a particular smith to any degree. 

DP

[Don Getz]

My latest barn gun, the one I am selling chances on, is basically a fantasy gun.    I started with kind of a generic lancaster
shaped stock and modified it a lot, and it doesn't fall into any basic school of gunbuilding.   I am happy with the end result
but, if you were a prude, you might condemn it, saying it is not "period correct".  You know what my feelings on that would
be.............Don

[Captchee]

Same here .  I don’t follow any real given school . Most folks  I build for don’t ask for a given copy of a rifle .
 Fantasy IMO is nothing more then saying ; if you were a smith back then , here is a rifle  I would have made .. Thus its my own work .

I had a friend many years ago  while in the service that was a very good  smith . He would spend  months on getting the smallest detail just so .
 I remember one afternoon he cam in all upset saying a customer had turned down his work . The rifle was a wonderful derrick. The inletting was as if everything was cast right to the wood .
 When I ask why , he  said that the customer wanted a gun made by him .
 I dint understand that   for a couple weeks when  his customer  called me . I  didn’t  at the time realize  who this person was until he said .; look . I want you to make me a rifle . I don’t want a copy of a rifle . I want a rifle that  shows your talent. Your work , not your ability to make  a copy of someone else’s  work .
 that’s when it dawned on me .  The fella wanted a gun MADE  by  Tim . Not just a gun made by Tim .

[alex e.]

I use the term "Historically  Inspired"It sounds more pleasing to the ears to me.

Alex

[northwoodsdave]

My 'fantasy rifle' would come with a history.  A lot of early (pre-Revolution) New England smoothies had features from early French guns as well as English touches and the occasional fix or replacement from local sources.  Old military musket parts were pressed into new service as well and, again, both French and English muskets were available.

Oddly, these "not historically correct" guns are, in fact, a part of history.

Dave

[billd]

I like to think all guns were fantasy guns 225 years ago.  Each builder did his own thing then a bunch of guys put names to them long after all the builders were dead.

Bill

[flintriflesmith]

Here's my two cents worth.

http://www.flintriflesmith.com/WritingandResearch/WebArticles/FantasyRifles.htm

Mark Silver and I were talking just this morning about an article he is writing for the January issue of American Traditions and the subject will be rifles that folks call an "interpretation." I believe he will address some of the points that separate "copies", "reproductions", "interpretations", and "new school." There is certianly a gray area between the last two.

Gary

[Waksupi]

I guess you may say this is a fantasy rifle. I got the stock blank from Peter Nap, and
made it work, with what parts I had, or could easily get. Not a copy of anything, just my own work. 

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=8286.0

[Dphariss]

Would someone tell me just how good/bad the inletting was on a rev-war or Golden Age gun when it was new? How many people have seen one "hot off the presses"? How does one judge how tight or loose they were 200 years out?
How can you tell at this late date if the gun was used much at all? If the stock absorbs moisture and swells it will compress the wood around the metal parts and when it looses moisture the fit will be looser and the wood shrinks away. A change in climate can do this Central heating or a wood stove in a tighter house can greatly reduce the humidity in winter and shrink a stock.
When did the inletting improve? Lots of early 19th century guns look pretty tight. Was there some magical transformation or was it the extra 60 or 100 years of use that some of the Colonial Guns were subjected to that makes them looser?

We don't even know if even unconverted guns still have their original locks or who/when may have replaced them. Some of Lewis and Clark Expedition rifles had locks worn to the point of being unserviceable by the time they were at Ft. Clatsop. New in 1803, worn out by 1805. These were supposedly good quality locks from Harpers Ferry.
I do not subscribe to the the "I need to make it sloppy to make it HC" school of thought nor will I do work of this quality. I just won't. My engraving is "challenged" but I am trying to improve on this.
I make enough mistakes I have to fix without getting lax.
We are not making rifles in 1770 we are making them in 1960 or 1990 or 2010. Nor are we making them for a 18th century clientele. The Engraving on a circa 1800 English Manton, for example would not likely get good reviews today by clients buying high end engraved guns.  I always try to do the best work I can. ITS A MATTER OF PERSONAL PRIDE. Its also a fact that people EXPECT better work now. I would expect a custom made rifle of today to have at least as good a metal wood fit as a factory made breechloader from the 1860s-70s.
This is a Connestoga Rifle Works Rifle (think really cheap Leman) from 1840, unfired, it has problems but the inletting is pretty good. Its actually better at the time this photo was taken when the rifle was about a 135-140 years old than some of the stuff people are making now.


How do these two guns compare?




I have no idea who stocked either one, one was made in St Louis as and it stamped S Hawken the other is marked Manton.
One was made in the late flint era and the other in the late percussion era 40+- years apart.
One was obviously used harder than the other. But the Hawken inletting is pretty good to this day. I have not the slightest idea what the difference was between 1750 and 1850 so far as technology but its can't be much different. I suspect that makers in 1750-1770 wanting to do good work did pretty good work. Just like today.The quality varies.
How do they compare the the bottom of the ladder Connestoga rifle?
I have taken apart rifles and run the stocks through the wood stove that were better than some of the stuff people will put on the Contemporary makers blog and get kudos on.
A friend of mine recently commented that he would be ashamed to show some of this stuff in public had he made it.
We are not making rifles like they were made in 1770 in the vast majority of cases if at all. We are CONTINUING the craft. We are working for a different clientele that, it would appear, some are trying to dumb down to accept lower quality work.
Back in the 60s many very nice rifles were made with straight barrels. Why? Because it was so darned hard to get swamps or tapers. Try finding a tapered and flared barrel in a DGW catalog from 1967. People making guns in the 50s got used to straight barrels and maybe tapers. They were  "normal" for the most part.

I see the idea that its OK to do sloppy inletting and low quality carving but not OK to use a straight barrel is laughable. The straight barrel I can live with. But looking a low quality inletting for the rest to of my life? Its harder to do.

Dan

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Would someone tell me just how good/bad the inletting was on a rev-war or Golden Age gun when it was new? How many people have seen one "hot off the presses"? How does one judge how tight or loose they were 200 years out?
How can you tell at this late date if the gun was used much at all? If the stock absorbs moisture and swells it will compress the wood around the metal parts and when it looses moisture the fit will be looser and the wood shrinks away. A change in climate can do this Central heating or a wood stove in a tighter house can greatly reduce the humidity in winter and shrink a stock.
When did the inletting improve? Lots of early 19th century guns look pretty tight. Was there some magical transformation or was it the extra 60 or 100 years of use that some of the Colonial Guns were subjected to that makes them looser?

We don't even know if even unconverted guns still have their original locks or who/when may have replaced them. Some of Lewis and Clark Expedition rifles had locks worn to the point of being unserviceable by the time they were at Ft. Clatsop. New in 1803, worn out by 1805. These were supposedly good quality locks from Harpers Ferry.
I do not subscribe to the the "I need to make it sloppy to make it HC" school of thought nor will I do work of this quality. I just won't. My engraving is "challenged" but I am trying to improve on this.
I make enough mistakes I have to fix without getting lax.
We are not making rifles in 1770 we are making them in 1960 or 1990 or 2010. Nor are we making them for a 18th century clientele. The Engraving on a circa 1800 English Manton, for example would not likely get good reviews today by clients buying high end engraved guns.  I always try to do the best work I can. ITS A MATTER OF PERSONAL PRIDE. Its also a fact that people EXPECT better work now. I would expect a custom made rifle of today to have at least as good a metal wood fit as a factory made breechloader from the 1860s-70s.
This is a Connestoga Rifle Works Rifle (think really cheap Leman) from 1840, unfired, it has problems but the inletting is pretty good. Its actually better at the time this photo was taken when the rifle was about a 135-140 years old than some of the stuff people are making now.
How do these two guns compare?
I have no idea who stocked either one, one was made in St Louis as and it stamped S Hawken the other is marked Manton.
One was made in the late flint era and the other in the late percussion era 40+- years apart.
One was obviously used harder than the other. But the Hawken inletting is pretty good to this day. I have not the slightest idea what the difference was between 1750 and 1850 so far as technology but its can't be much different. I suspect that makers in 1750-1770 wanting to do good work did pretty good work. Just like today.The quality varies.
How do they compare the the bottom of the ladder Connestoga rifle?
I have taken apart rifles and run the stocks through the wood stove that were better than some of the stuff people will put on the Contemporary makers blog and get kudos on.
A friend of mine recently commented that he would be ashamed to show some of this stuff in public had he made it.
We are not making rifles like they were made in 1770 in the vast majority of cases if at all. We are CONTINUING the craft. We are working for a different clientele that, it would appear, some are trying to dumb down to accept lower quality work.
Back in the 60s many very nice rifles were made with straight barrels. Why? Because it was so darned hard to get swamps or tapers. Try finding a tapered and flared barrel in a DGW catalog from 1967. People making guns in the 50s got used to straight barrels and maybe tapers. They were  "normal" for the most part.

I see the idea that its OK to do sloppy inletting and low quality carving but not OK to use a straight barrel is laughable. The straight barrel I can live with. But looking a low quality inletting for the rest to of my life? Its harder to do.

Dan

OK........ Dan, What does this rant have to do with this thread??? 
I agree with you BTW re sloppy work.....and I am working to get better......

[northmn]

Dan's comments about straight barrels hold for me also, but for builds even later than the 60's.  I do not know quite when the machining capabilites were availabel for those that now inlet swamped barrels, but most back then, as a matter of expediency used table saws, or routers to inlet their barrels, or the precarved were available for straight barrels.  I saw very darn few swamped barrels back then.  Today's technology has given many a chance to use them, but when I put mine in it will be by hand as I have had to do for smoothbores.  My point being that a lot of the "fantasy" work done today is done because many, not all, but many, are buying kits where a lot of the drudgery type work is done for them.  A few are buying blanks and sending them off to be inletted for barrels and ramrods (for some of the more artistic talents I have seen that work may be a waste of talent and makes sense) When a rifle is started from basic components by the time one gets to where its about ready to shoot you are about ready to finish it off as there is a lot of work left in the carving and engraving.  Making and installing a &&$$ worthless patchbox is a lot of work but we do it because that is characteristic of the times we emulate.  But building from basic components also means that the dreation is mine.  How many Isaac Haines variations are there out there with the same buttplates, barrel and stock design

DP  
  

[Dan'l 1946]

Scotty, OK, I submit the following facts;

Last year a "dude" from the "Hill" of Harrisburg asked me to make a "superfly Kentucky."  Bill Shipman, are you tuned in, too?  More living proof that there is variety in the old gun business.  Here's what he got.

A true hog leg. hockey stick variety of butt, reminiscent of a late "Ruppy" Lehigh, married to a chunk of wood that looks crude...similar to what we'all refer to as a "Virginia Gun."  Then I added silver do-dads all over, and a few big rhinestones right in the spot where I would usually do some carving.  

Then, modeled after Catherine the Great's Jaeger, now housed in the Smithsonian, I added a satin cheek-piece, stuffed with down, and used carpet tacks to set it in.  Then I put a zircon 4-carat fake diamond  right in the center of the main motif where a patchbox would normally go, and dolled the rest to look like a box.  Then I applied some crisp Kwanzaa symbolism, approved by our symbolism gurus to be the "real stuff."

He paid less than 5 figures, and sports his new rod with pride.  Working on new orders as we speak.   Hope this helps.  Wayne

  Sounds like a beauty! I'll bet you could sell a million of them in San Francisco--if gun ownership was allowed there--and San Francisco was still a part of planet  Earth.  Might go over big in NYC and Boston, too

  On a more serious note, I have a copy of an early New England rifle that, despite a lot of research, I still feel is a fantasy piece. The original gun is dated to the 1740s and probably that is correct. It resembles a fowler from that period with the often seen mix of French and "New England" characteristics. It is light and handles more like a fowler. I've seen a number of early New England guns just like it, but they were all smoothbores. The fantasy aspect of this piece--both the original and my gun-- is the rifling. I am pretty sure that the original was rifled long after the 1740s were were just a memory! Maybe around the time of the Revolution or even later. $#*! of a shooter though.

[Artificer]

Could I suggest that the older and/or more experienced the customer, the less "strict" the rifle may have been made to follow the "basics" of any school, BUT still remain in that gunsmith's school?  What I'm talking about is length and shape of the barrel, the drop of the stock, the width of the stock and things that the more experienced customer had found he preferred?  IOW, the customer may have wanted a buttplate that was wider than the gunsmith normally made, but it would have been in the same "school" or style/tradition the gunsmith made, for example. 

For the men who used the rifle a lot and/or they depended more on their rifle for sustenance or survival, I personally believe how well a rifle "fit" them and "felt" in their hands and when shooting, was the most important thing.  Carving and inlays made a rifle "purtier" and surely gave the owner more pride of ownership, but fit and feel was the most important thing after it being an accurate rifle. 

To me, a fantasy rifle is a collection of parts that the owner either prefers for whatever reason and is assembled into a rifle that doesn't follow the GENERAL characteristics of any school and or a blending of two schools that were geographically close to each other. 

Gus

[Dphariss]

Would someone tell me just how good/bad the inletting was on a rev-war or Golden Age gun when it was new? How many people have seen one "hot off the presses"? How does one judge how tight or loose they were 200 years out?
How can you tell at this late date if the gun was used much at all? If the stock absorbs moisture and swells it will compress the wood around the metal parts and when it looses moisture the fit will be looser and the wood shrinks away. A change in climate can do this Central heating or a wood stove in a tighter house can greatly reduce the humidity in winter and shrink a stock.
When did the inletting improve? Lots of early 19th century guns look pretty tight. Was there some magical transformation or was it the extra 60 or 100 years of use that some of the Colonial Guns were subjected to that makes them looser?

We don't even know if even unconverted guns still have their original locks or who/when may have replaced them. Some of Lewis and Clark Expedition rifles had locks worn to the point of being unserviceable by the time they were at Ft. Clatsop. New in 1803, worn out by 1805. These were supposedly good quality locks from Harpers Ferry.
I do not subscribe to the the "I need to make it sloppy to make it HC" school of thought nor will I do work of this quality. I just won't. My engraving is "challenged" but I am trying to improve on this.
I make enough mistakes I have to fix without getting lax.
We are not making rifles in 1770 we are making them in 1960 or 1990 or 2010. Nor are we making them for a 18th century clientele. The Engraving on a circa 1800 English Manton, for example would not likely get good reviews today by clients buying high end engraved guns.  I always try to do the best work I can. ITS A MATTER OF PERSONAL PRIDE. Its also a fact that people EXPECT better work now. I would expect a custom made rifle of today to have at least as good a metal wood fit as a factory made breechloader from the 1860s-70s.
This is a Connestoga Rifle Works Rifle (think really cheap Leman) from 1840, unfired, it has problems but the inletting is pretty good. Its actually better at the time this photo was taken when the rifle was about a 135-140 years old than some of the stuff people are making now.
How do these two guns compare?
I have no idea who stocked either one, one was made in St Louis as and it stamped S Hawken the other is marked Manton.
One was made in the late flint era and the other in the late percussion era 40+- years apart.
One was obviously used harder than the other. But the Hawken inletting is pretty good to this day. I have not the slightest idea what the difference was between 1750 and 1850 so far as technology but its can't be much different. I suspect that makers in 1750-1770 wanting to do good work did pretty good work. Just like today.The quality varies.
How do they compare the the bottom of the ladder Connestoga rifle?
I have taken apart rifles and run the stocks through the wood stove that were better than some of the stuff people will put on the Contemporary makers blog and get kudos on.
A friend of mine recently commented that he would be ashamed to show some of this stuff in public had he made it.
We are not making rifles like they were made in 1770 in the vast majority of cases if at all. We are CONTINUING the craft. We are working for a different clientele that, it would appear, some are trying to dumb down to accept lower quality work.
Back in the 60s many very nice rifles were made with straight barrels. Why? Because it was so darned hard to get swamps or tapers. Try finding a tapered and flared barrel in a DGW catalog from 1967. People making guns in the 50s got used to straight barrels and maybe tapers. They were  "normal" for the most part.

I see the idea that its OK to do sloppy inletting and low quality carving but not OK to use a straight barrel is laughable. The straight barrel I can live with. But looking a low quality inletting for the rest to of my life? Its harder to do.

Dan

OK........ Dan, What does this rant have to do with this thread??? 
I agree with you BTW re sloppy work.....and I am working to get better......

See the link in Gary's post. Paragraph IV.

I didn't make a new thread since its connected by this link.

To expound a little more...

I see this as an excuse for poor workmanship. Period.

I cannot see the point of telling people they have created a "wonderful whatever" when the lines are horrid, the inletting sloppy and its rusted to an extent that no rifle in actual use would be.
But if pitted as a final finish it will take hours off the polishing, if you "distress" the stock it takes hours off the stock work. Rough scraped finish? More hours saved.

Its only acceptable IF the CUSTOMER thinks its OK. If someone was giving 6 months wages, maybe more, for a rifle in 1770 I doubt he is going to accept a sloppily made gun. Lack of care/craftsmanship in one place may, in fact probably DOES, indicate a lack of care/craftmanship in another, like in the BORE where it COUNTS, or the breechplug or the welding of the barrel. People depended on these guns for their LIVES and the lives of their FAMILY and companions.
So would someone pay 15% more for a rifle made by a craftsman or buy the cheaper one that looks like it was stocked as a high school shop class entry level wood working project? Admittedly some people cannot tell the difference and will buy based on price.
Colonial guns were not made in a vacuum. There were pretty nice guns in Colonial America at that time. Both made here and imported either for sale or by their owners.
Why would someone pay 5 to 8 POUNDS for a rifle that was sloppily put together???
 
Then look at the cheap factory mades by Leman and Henry in the early 19th century.
Buttplate, all the parts. Most were pretty well put together. If the custom guns were sloppy why would they bother? Are we to believe that there was some magical change from 1775 to 1820 that made the wormanship suddenly better?
The factory mades were also cheap, lower cost that many custom makers could match by most or all accounts. Why would they bother making pretty nice guns if that was not what was expected?
The American native, from most accounts, was pretty discriminating in the firearms he bought and if he was sold a POS with a stock painted to cover the errors it could be a fatal mistake by the seller.
They also tended to buy the better grade rifles when buying one.

Were some of these early guns made from stock wood that was too new to hold its dimensions? Perhaps during a high demand period? Possible. This can be maddening. In a gun that cannot be "refit" its a disaster from the standpoint of looking good.

Again. I see what we do as continuing the art. This does not mean we have to recreate sloppy work from the past, and its out there. Why not strive to recreate the better made guns? Why make a gun with ugly lines even if the original looks like that?
Fanatasy guns? I suppose some are based on what I have read here. But copying several features from related original rifles does not make it a "fantasy gun" it makes if a continuation of the art.

Dan

[jwh1947]

Wow, fantasy seems to be a popular topic around these parts.  What a surprise.  Yet, you are to be commended, as y'all at least seem to know fantasy when you envision it and might be able to identify it when you see it.  The trick is to keep your collection of originals free from these contaminants, and have fun with fantasy guns that are straightforwardly presented as such.  

[FL-Flintlock]

So can we safely "assume" there are no "original" fantasy guns?











I agree with some of the previous posts but only to a point.  First off, all "originals" were in fact "fantasy guns" because the builders were building what had not previously existed and thus, they created reality from the "fantasy" within their own mind ... some would call it "creativity" or "invention"

As for the workmanship on originals, I call your attention to some examples clearly showing that not all the workmanship came out as craftsmanship.  Take a look at these and ask yourself if they would pass a modern day inspection for craftsmanship & symmetry...








Note checkering


I fully agree that one should always put forth maximum effort as anything worth doing is worth doing right but for anyone to claim that the celebrated "grand masters" were beyond making mistakes or letting things pass that weren't "perfect" is pure horse pucky!  A close inspection of even the most "high-art" guns. swords, daggers... that grand master builders worked on, many times for years, will reveal many little boo boo's, errors, mistakes, slips and so forth.  While I am in agreement that one who intentionally produces a "reproduction" of lesser quality than the original is doing a disservice not only to the client but also to the community as a whole, one must take into account that not everything produced back in the day has been as well documented as others.  While one can justify representing well documented original maker of "X" product, one cannot ignore the reality that "X" was not the only maker of said product. 

I see this same narrow-minded $#@* all the time across the spectrum of antiques and reproductions and most recently with furniture.  A fellow I supply with coated abrasive products builds modern as well as reproduction furniture.  About a month ago, a self-annointed "expert" made a public proclamation that a reproduction piece he made was "not representative of the builders within period claimed and that the builder had done a complete disservice to the historical furniture society".  This public proclamation was based on nothing more than the "opinion" of the self-annointed "expert" yet the damage to the builder's business had been done despite the fact that the "expert" was totally ignorant of the fact that the particular piece represented that done by a little known family who built furniture in addition to farming, fishing & trapping.  The original pieces of furniture were not within the level of craftsmanship that would have come from professional builders in the northern cities.  The reproduction was in fact an accurate representation not only of the particular family of part-time furniture makers but also very much similar to the style produced by other part-time furniture makers in the region.  This self-annointed "expert" based his "opinion" on the mixture of as-worked iron, brass & copper forgings and lack of precision finishing of the wood despite the fact that it was totally appropriate!

Does it make "X" product, regional style or builder any less historically relevant or correct just because someone hasn't written a book about whatever?  There are barely a handful of professional furniture makers documented in the southeast states yet tens of thousands of households were furnished.  There are even fewer gun builders documented in the same region yet there were also plenty of guns.  The styles and level of "perceived" craftsmanship varied from builder to builder as well from one local area to another, for anyone to make broadbased claims about a particular item is to do nothing more than show their ignorance to fact.

One more point on today's rant.  I firmly believe it is our modern "disposable" society that has tainted the majority view and understanding of history.  No matter if it was the 18th century or the 14th century, one did not simply throw things away as we do today.  A broken knife blade was either repaired or reshaped to make it useful just as a gun with a broken wrist was repaired or re-stocked.  Based on historical facts that are common throughout all of history and in every region of the world, before we became a "disposable society", items that were still useful were still used and re-used until they became totally un-usable.  Just look at the vast assortment of items that were documented in the dig (east Texas IIRC) items spanning many decades and from all regions of the US plus items that were uniquely local or French, Spanish, Dutch, Mexican, ect. in origin as well as all the items that had been re-worked from something else.

[northmn]

Fantasy guns today:  How about a flinlock Hawken.  Their has been controversy concerning their existence or appropriateness,  but it has not stopped some from making them and enjoying them.  Hawkens made tody likely are a bit better furnished than originals.  For that matter, most builds today are probably over finished.  Seems to go with the territory makes folks happy.  Should we as Dan points out, try to if anything exceed, the workmanship of originals?  Doesn't hurt.  One thing to remember is one man's beauty is anothers abomination.  I just cannot get excited about a Bedford rifle, some love them. some carry their fantasies to the point of gaudy, but I think it was MIke Fink that was said to have bought a rifle that was covered in inlays. A few originals approach gaudy, especially in the later part of the "Golden Age"  I think we sometimes can picture what we want to build and then go for it.  I try to attempt to not mess up a good piece fo maple or walnut too much.

DP

[jwh1947]

Northmn, I appreciate your comments.  Most modern products are over finished, and far too much time is often spent on what we anals refer to as details.  One of my old masters told me, "If it is difficult, you aren't doing it correctly."  Several years later, even one as obtuse as I am was able to figure out what he meant.  It does reduce to details, but the trick is in learning how to accomplish them without struggle.  This is achieved by learning how the period masters actually did the jobs.  Much of this information was handed down to me by mouth, from a master who took the time to look over my shoulder and share all.  Books are great, but, regarding gunbuilding,  these experiences are often greater. 

[northmn]

O do not know the finishing techniques of the old "masters"  I doubt that they could go to the local hardware store and buy several assorted grits of sand papers up to 600 grit or steel wool.  I question whether they also had the various finishing agents we use today.  Seemed a lot of them had a reddish varnish they used.  Our fantasy rifles of today use all that stuff but they make a very pretty rifle also.  Goes back to the issues of what is appropriate.  As long as we follow the art styles and guidelines of the originals we are staying within the parameters.  I have yet to see a favorite jeep engraved on a patchbox nor a thumbhole stock on a flintlock so I think we are doing pretty good.

DP

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

I think this is an elbow hole DP

 Ben Griffin 1765

[northmn]

No matter how sure you are someone always finds an exception

DP

[cheyenne]

Interesting thread, to say the least.  Lot's of good info....I like some of the 'fantasy rifles' I've seen, and some, well, not so much.  My fantasy is to have a nice rifle!

[jwh1947]

Northmn, correct again, from what I can ascertain.  Sandpaper was not available to the old masters at all.  Obviously, any acrylic or polymer-based finish was not, either.  What you will find around here is that some of the more noted builders scrape-finish their rifles, as they are rather certain that this is how many of the old boys did it.  If I am not mistaken, Allan Martin once gave a seminar on the subject, and, if you ask him at Dixon's I am sure he'd give you an abbreviated summary.  I have a knife here made by Bill Kennedy that works well.  Wayne