There's nothing workmanlike about making a bench or documentary copy of an original you have in hand. You're working in that man's style and trying to do what he's practiced at. Workmanlike is doing what you're used to and practiced at. By doing things his way you learn but there is nothing efficient about it unless you adopt it and do it again and again.
Bill,
I think Mark's point was that in order to make a rifle that is as much like the original in look and feel a modern builder has to learn to produce the same surface appearances, tool marks, etc. as those produced by the original maker who WAS proceeding in a "workmanlike manner." We have discussed this and in my opinion it is often harder for a 21st century builder to generate an authentic look to wood or metal than it is for him to make a spit-shined "modern" finish. Of course every time I write about this someone chimes in saying that I am encouraging "sloppy" work!
Gary
Some things to consider.
There is a difference between a scraped finish done as it should be and likely was and something that appears to have been done by a bored former owner who (maybe) thought the stock was too shiny and took most of the varnish off with a knife..
Then we have to lock inletting thing, for example, lots of locks were repaired or replaced while the guns were in service. Many are replacements from the 20th century. Then we have wood rot. So how the inletting looks NOW may have nothing to do with what it was originally.
Just because the surviving rifle has a sloppy fitting lock is no indication it was made that way. Maybe the replacement was a near perfect fit but the bolster was such that the lock sets deeper now. Was the barrel shortened slightly at the breech and the result was that the lock is now deeper in the wood?
A scraped finish, done with reasonable care, then covered with one coat of oil varnish will actually look pretty shiny and level, the scraper marks will not show much if at all. They may actually show more after the finish is worn off, but this does not mean it looked like this when new or perhaps not even during the first owners lifetime.
One of the things that may have "sensitized" me was the German rifles at some art museum that were being used as examples of rough background in relief carving on original guns when they looked for the world like someone had cleaned mud off with a knife or nail point. Are we to believe that the metal was easier to smooth than the wood?
Considering the rest of the wood work there was no way that this rifle went out with this damage in just one place.
They had a guild system in Germany and I doubt anyone would produce work this bad and be able to hold his head up around other guild members. I can hear the snickering across the centuries.
But people sometimes want things to be what they want them to be so bad they will jump on some really ridiculous things as examples of something they want to see for what ever reason. Perhaps, it would seem, to make their work like the originals by finding something on an original that looks like something they are attempting to justify.
Someone saw a photo of a H House rifle and so wanted to find an iron mounted original he posted here that there was an original iron mounted rifle on the blog.
Nobody does perfect work. Its ALL got something the maker does not care for, that did not come out quite right or as planned. Sometimes its mostly between the makers ears, but often its real but not noticed by the casual observer, but the builder KNOWS where to look.
We know there were some pretty nice rifles made in Colonial times.
Does the side plate fit well and lock horrible? How come?
I am 1000 miles from the books right now on family business but look at the inletting on the PATCH BOXES. If someone can do a nice job on a PATCH BOX finial a lockplate is a piece of cake. So are we to believe that the guns with nicely fitting patchboxs and sloppy fitting locks came from the maker that way???
Dan
