Does anyone build...

[bjmac]

Does anyone build purely for the art of the rifle? I mean, as opposed to being PC/HC or trying to copy a particular gun or school? The reason that I am asking is that, to me, the art form of these rifles are what draws me to them in the first place. Any comments?

[greybeard]

Having never seen or handeled an original I have to rely on books so when I layout for example the patch box I use my imagination for the art work and try to keep it period but the art layout is mine. Thi carving is similar to a Reedy gun that I changed a bit to suit me. All my guns have a lot of my imagination in them so I have to say that I am not HC or PC correct. I have had a lot of fun doing my own thing.

[jpldude]

Larry Gardner tends to do his own thing:

http://www.artandarms.net/index.htm

Rgds,

John

[Lucky R A]

  I would certainly second the sugguestion for Larry Gardner.  He is first an artist and second a gun builder.

Ron

[Dave B]

There was a contemporary rifle builder by the name of Fred Riley out of Florida that built his rifles in a very distinctive manor. You will find his work published in Contemporary makers of Muzzle loading firearms. You can tell one of his rifles from across a room. Keith Casteel is in the same vein. His rifles are not HC but beautiful none the less.  For my own part I like to build to capture the essence of a school in architecture but always drift off with carving and engraving. I must make a concerted effort to be restrained in this area because with the smoke clears the project shouldn't look over done.

[keweenaw]

Mark Silver's work certainly falls in that category. While a rifle might be Moravian or early German jaeger they're far from copies.


Tom

[smart dog]

That is all I build for except in addition I am interested in exploring old firearm technology.  I love the decorative arts and muzzleloader gun stocks are a superb canvas for those arts.

dave 

[sz]

To use the terminology that John Bivins gave us, there are 4 groups of builders.
#1 documentations.  These builders try to faithfully recreates the work of old builders from "the old days" often doing so warts and all.

#2 are the "new School Builders" which is what I assume you are speaking of in your question.
These builders make guns with fall within the historical parameters of historical design, but do their own artwork and make guns as if they were competing with the masters of old, back when the masters were still living.

#3 is the Interpreters.  These men blend the ideas of the first 2 groups.

#4 is the modernists.  These are the men who give us the inlines, plastic stocks, electronic ignition and so on.

I build full time to earn my living.   I do all of the first 3 types of building, depending on what my customer is asking for.  But my favorite American style gun is exactly what you are asking about, which is to let me create what I like, and to do as good a job as I can as if I were living in the 1790s and trying to compete with the best of the old men.

If building in European or British styles I like the build as in interpretive builder.

[bjmac]

Thanks for the replies, guys. As I am building my first, I was starting to worry that I was going all askew! I have been pouring over the library and seeing things that I like, but they are all on different rifles.  I really have no desire to copy anyone elses work, preferring instead to "make my own statement". Larry Gardners work is a good example of what I'm after in my building.

[smart dog]

Hi,
A friend who is a formally trained artist always told me that his teachers advised students to learn craft first, and then the art may come.  It is rarely the other way around and even when someone learns craft, they may never become an artist.
Artists are a small subset of craftsmen.
dave

[hoochiepapa]

I "go my own way". I talked to Jack Brooks about attending some of his classes, he only lives 30 min. away, but he wants his students to copy their first couple of rifles. I don't want to copy except for "styles".  I like the Verner style, and others, and I want that to show in what I do.

[Swampwalker]

I also would like to add a word or two of caution - so many of the rifles I see that people are making borrow a carving design from one school, a patchbox from another, stock architecture from another.  What they end up with may look great, but to someone who has some knowledge, they just look like what they are, a mis-mash of different but recognizable school elements.   I, for what it's worth, would recommend staying within a particular school or even builder's stylistic range until you really understand the artistic forms and can come up with something really original.

[hoochiepapa]

Case in point:
George Schroyer stock lines, Issac Haines furniture, Schroyer carving. Patchbox (unengraved, still learning)from an old catalogue.

[Blacksmoke]

bjmac:  Thanks for posting your question while you are in your "beginings" and welcome the forum!   
When I started making longrifles back in the 70's, I would pick out the historic rifles from various books which appealed to me and try to be influenced by them according to "school" and "maker".  After making
5-6 guns that way, I found that I had my own ideas on decoration, style and so on.  So from the mid 80's onwards, I made what pleased me and did my own decoration.  Now I am making lock, stock and barrel of my own design, including the rifling!.  See below.

Historically each maker basically did his own thing subject to influence from his particular local.  However, he was an individual employing individual characteristics which were his alone.  That's how we are able to identify old unsigned rifles today - because of the maker's individual trademarks, even within a given "school". 

I am not a big fan of "bench copies".  I like to see creativity that is original.     To me, copying is a form of theft - it is an "artifake"     The same principle is in place in the "art" realm.  Original art is far more collectable than copies. 

However, having said all of that, I do not have a whole lot of problem with a beginner "copying" stock designs, inlays and general art forms from old originals as an attempt to establish some footing in the gun making realm.  As time goes on and he gains confidence in his abilities, he should gravitate towards his own creativity.      Hugh Toenjes

[t.caster]

I guess I fit into Bivins groupo #1. I will make no apologies for it, even though I seam to be in the minority here! I am in love with the old folkart carving and engraving and I have no plans to change and go modern. Hugh, your artwork is exquisite and beautiful. You are a true artist in very sense of the word, and many others on this site are as well. I know there is a high dollar market for this kind of work. With all due respect, and I don't intend this to start a row, but that rifle in all it's beauty, looks as 21st century as the inlines so many despise.
For new guys starting out, I repeat what someone else said already....learn the craft. It takes a ton of discipline and patiance to recreate the architecture and style of an original, and few have that dedication, IMHO. Do this FIRST, then branch off on your own if you desire.
Nuff said.
 

[Herb]

bjmac- I like to copy rifles that I like very closely but then engrave, inlay or carve to my taste.  The top rifle is a near exact copy of a Jacob Wigle rifle (Westmoreland County PA) that was found in a dry cave with the dessicated body of a mixed blood Indian boy near Vernal, Utah in the 1920s.  Jacob Wigle has his name stamped in a brass inlay in the top of the barrel behind the rear sight.  I restored this rifle for a museum display and so have exact photos, measurements, tracings, rubbings, etc.  The problem is that the original barrel of probably 46" had been cut to 35.5 inches, some of the inlays had been pried out, and the lock and sideplate changed, and there was a lot of wear.  So there was a lot to interpret.  The second copy was for my cousin's husband, who is a Weigle, and he wanted it in walnut and .50 caliber rather than .40.    I made the first two barrels 38". I built a third copy as exact to the original as I could figure it, 44" barrel, then realized the original had been about 46".

The walnut rifle is a near exact copy of a J.H. Johnston rifle except a 32" .50 barrel rather than 33.5" .34 caliber.  The other is based on a J. Fleeger rifle, changed from right to left hand, 44 1/8" .35 to 30" .50, buttercups instead of harebell inlays and white pine needles and cone engraving on a different pattern patchbox.

This is based on a late Lancaster with my own engraving of Texas bluebonnets and a silver star.  .50 flintlock.

[greybeard]

My goodness Hugh, you are certainley an artisan. (thou shal not covet) but it' hard not to.
Bob

[bjmac]

I don't know what I was expecting as responses, but I sure am happy that I asked! These responses are just what I needed, as I was getting kind of unhappy by reading all of the info and HC/PC-ness. I just needed to know that there were builders that were following their own instincts. I can understand starting off with a design in mind (ie a Beck) and then making it your own by your embellishments, etc. I just do not want to copy someone else's work!. Thanks for the info and encouragement.
BJ

[greybeard]

bjmac.  Do your own thing and have a good time doing it. The only person you really have to please is yourself. BOB

[bgf]

You can do whatever you want to your rifle, including making it out of pink plexiglass and glitter inlays, if it suits you.  What you'll find, however, is that the longer you study originals, the more you'll be drawn to a certain group, maybe from a simply aesthetic standpoint, perhaps from the perspective of your family's history, often both.  Probably once you find the "school(s)" that you like, it will be a light burden to work within it, and as it becomes more meaningful to you, you will grow more respectful of the limitations.  Even if I'm wrong and you go a little psychedelic, you're still welcome to shoot with me, and most of the people I know feel the same way.  HC just isn't the issue in the real world that it is on the internet.

[Blacksmoke]

Wow - I cannot believe the response that I am getting both on and off the ALR site in regards to the photos that I posted earlier on this thread.   For years I've tried to make the grade of being numbered with the in lines!   It looks like I've finally made it!           Hugh Toenjes

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Hugh, I see nothing in your beautiful work that is not typical of the period in some way to my amateur eye  .......... I think we simply haven't had much opportunity to see any fine art - high end guns of the 18th century I suppose they exist in some secret locations) and so the the perfection and elegance of your work is much better than what we are used to seeing on original guns from the colonies/US...Now English and European guns would come a lot closer I think... Although, it is interesting to speculate on what your rifle will look like in 250 years??? 

In any event I am grateful for those who can make awesome bench copies AND those of you who are creative artists in your own right.... I get to learn from all of you and enjoy looking at the fine guns that you build. All contribute to the culture of the American Longrifle... including its derivations.

[huckfinn]

I'm glad that we can all share information on this site.   I wish I had known about it before I built my fowler   It is great that so many are willing to post their knowledge. 
     I have great respect for anyone who has built a muzzle loader.  Especially those who have taken it to such a high art form.   

[Rasch Chronicles]

Hmmm,

I don't get the 21st Century inline comparison. Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears to me that Hugh's LR is a piece fit for heads of state or captains of industry. The technical execution and form are exemplary, to say nothing of the regulated screws!

Or is it the quality of execution that's the problem? Too good?

Best regards,
Albert

PS:You guys likely aren't interested in my "Steampunk ALR" idea do you...

[Blacksmoke]

Albert:  In actual fact the before pictured rifle in this thread, by me,  IS "presentation grade".   It is cased with complete accessories.   How anyone can mistake it or compare it for an in-line is beyond me!   As to it looking like 21 st. century - that is when it was made!    ALL old guns were once NEW!     Mine are no different.    I cannot imagine an old master deliberately "antiquing" his new rifle before the client received it!    Further - in lines are "machine" made using that latest in high tech equip.    My guns are "hand" made from "scratch" ( not a kit) - I have no high tech machinery.    The rifle that I pictured took 3000 hrs. of bench time to complete!   The case and accessories took another 3000 hrs.    I have a sign in my shop that reads:  "I specialize in low tech".           Hugh Toenjes