Gun Judging

[Long John]

Well there we were, at the Fair, sitting around with a bunch of makers and the conversation ended up seguaeing into the topic of how guns are being judged.  How is it that a finely crafted riflegun that is beautifully carved and elegantly engraved ends up coming in second to a "plain jane" gun?  There has to be a better way!

Well, I don't know if it is better, but it is different!  While sitting in an airport gate area waiting for another delayed flight I got to thinking and came up with a points-added gun evaluation protocol.  The method lists all of eh basic parts and gives the judge the option to add all or just some points for that particular element of the gun.  Being an engineer, I did it as an Excel spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet looks like this:



The whole idea behind this method is to provide an incentive for daring to try to develop skills and reward the maker for the work she/he has done – not the work somebody else did.

The portion of the form that is NOT in blue is intended to be filled in by the entrant.  The entrant is to declare how the gun is to be viewed either as a traditional arm or a contemporary arm.  The entrant has space to tell the judges what she/he was trying to do.  For example: an “early Lancaster school rifle”, a “late Allentown-Bethlehem school rifle” or a “reproduction of RCA 65”.  The maker is also to disclose what parts she/he made in the first-person as opposed to purchased.

The entrant indicates the construction context (kit, precarve, machine inlet or blank).  Since a kit supplies the appropriate parts and the maker has no opportunity to choose the wrong style part, she/he gets only nominal credit for the selection and/or making of the parts.  With a pre-carve the maker has more latitude and hence receives more credit if the appropriate part has been chosen for the rifle.  On a machine inlet stock the maker gets more credit for the construction decisions and execution that was NOT done by the inletter.  With the built-from-a-blank option the builder gets the most credit as she/he has essentially controlled the entire process.  If the maker made her/his own lock or barrel she/he gets large credits.  If she/he made parts by hand appropriate credit is given for having done so.  If the gun is engraved or carved additional credit is given if the engraving is done well and adds to the gun.  If the engraving detracts from the gun the scorer can insert either zero credit or, in extreme cases, a negative number for these parts of the build.

In most cases the maker will receive not the maximum but a score less than maximum.  For example, let’s consider a kit gun that has a couple of gapes in the barrel inlet.  Since the maker did not repair the gaps she/he does not get the maximum possible of 3 points but only gets 2 for barrel inlet.  If the exact same gun were build from a blank and there are the same 2 small gaps but the barrel inlet is otherwise fine then the maker would get 8 points (10-2) as the rest of the inletting is fine and she/he did 80% of that work well.  If the maker assembled the lock from rough castings she/he gets more points that if she/he had just taken a commercially-available lock and installed it as-received.  If the maker modified the lock then she/he can receive some additional credit for having undertaken and skillfully executed that work.

The advantage of this type of judging system is that it recognizes the effort and rewards the skill of having made the rifle rather than just finishing some one else’s work.  Note that credit for engraving is only accrued if done by the maker.  The whole idea behind this concept of gun judging is that it provides an incentive to TRY to expand one’s skills rather than the disincentive in the points-subtracted scoring system.

For each part of the build the gun is awarded points from 0 to the maximum permissible score for each aspect of the build.   The score is inserted in the right hand column. If the gun is a kit then fewer points are available because the builder has done less of the design part of the build – relying on the kit provider for the architecture and component selection.  If the construction context is one where the builder has taken on greater latitude and responsibility for design decisions then more credit is available.  If the work is done without flaw then that aspect of the build receives the maximum credit.  If it is good but not perfect then it receives something between 0 and the maximum based upon the judge’s qualitative assessment of the work. 

If the form is filled out in Excel on a computer then the sum of points is automatically added in the “total” box at the bottom of the right column.


What do you think?

Best Regards,

JMC

[rich pierce]

It's a complex system that would reward me richly since I make a lot of parts and work from blanks.  So I like it!  I also like this system since I sometimes wonder how many newer builders could build from a blank efficiently, including barrel inlet, ramrod groove, and drilling the hole.  Bivins suggested the stock duplicators would serve as modern "apprentices", but inherent in that suggestion is that the master should have the ability to do anything the apprentice could do, but better.

While staying at the Hampton Inn I was surfing Tv and they were showing old Dixon's seminars.  Taylor's was the most entertaining but Roland Cadle or is it Gable had a presentation on the judging philosophy at Dixons.  The ribbons and awards are almost an afterthought but they have become the emphasis among entrants, understandably.  The Dixon's judging is to point out flaws so builders can improve their work.  Masters should be brave enough to carve and engrave their guns.  I'm just giving a book report here, not advocating.

[wpalongrifle]

Long John, being one of the new judges,over the past two years i;ve often wondered the same questions? i like your spread sheet. couple things this year that happened in journeymen class was great form and fit but rushed on the final details that cost many points. on patchbox const. we had three guns that did not have lid springs, but hat releases? no cam either?  you simply have to choice the one that's done correctly!!! also a lot of guns entered in traditional that were copies of originals like berks county rifle with bivins bicentennial thimbles and entry pipes? theres a fine line. and with stiff competition you have to simply choose the ones with the least mistakes. a learning phase for both builder and judges!! i'd like to hear more from forum posters on this,feedback always welcome?  thanks,mike

[VirginiaSmokepole]

I like it!  While I have not had a gun judged I see this form as rewarding those who do the most work.  There is no reason for a guy building from a pre-carved stock getting the same points as the guy who works from a blank. 

Extra kudos for the builder who planted the tree when he was a kid, chopped it down, dried it and built a fine rifle from hand forged parts, using iron ore that he dug out of the dirt!!!   

[Don Getz]

After the gun is finished, who is to know if it was built from scratch, or was it built from a preshaped stock?   Only the builder knows, and you are dependent on him to give an honest evaluation of how he built it............this doesn't always
happen.         Don

[Tom Currie]

I would welcome changes that recognize/reward the builder for work done by the builder himself and encourages creativity.

There's a lot a variability in " hand done" levels of work layed out for the judges. Kit vs blank, machine inlet barrels vs hand inlet..how about hand made and filed pipes vs fancy wax cast or heaven forbid machine stamped pipes maybe touched up with a file to look better, what about pnuematic engravers vs self powered work ?  etc...etc

I think figuring how to score differently , or how to judge what each of these hand done tasks are "worth" might be a challenge for the judges to come to concensus on.  I'm only saying that because at this point in time they are judging only the end result, not the process required to get there.

[Jim Kibler]

Sorry, but I have to ask...  Do you think "judging " of guns and the resultant competion is a good thing?  From an outsider's perspective this is much different than critique.  If it's worth anything, my personal view is that the idea and process, though well meaning, is not a good thing.  People sometimes seem to become motivated by the wrong reasons.  Further, the idea of a few well meaning people being actually able to "judge" a gun doesn't seem reasonable to me.  This stuff is quite different than say, grading a math test for example.  I will add one more opinion...  If a builder puts forth the effort and has passion and desire, there will be no shortage of peole willing to help.  Just one man's view. 

Jim

[rich pierce]

Jim, the judging at Dixons certainly brings up a lot of discussion over the years so it's safe to say there are varied opinions about the process.  But more to your point, regardless of the grading system, there is a tendency for things to take on the feeling of a county fair where the pies are being judged, or maybe a dog show, where there are breed standards to be met. However it is an institution at Dixons and if folks don't take it too seriously, it can be a fun part of the weekend there.  A number of builders have used the "Best of Show at Dixon's" to help attract customers. 

Another idea is to have a tent at a show or fair such as this where folks could bring their guns by and have an opportunity to receive a critique from a rotating group of builders who have demonstrated some mastery.  A "Gun Critique Tent" (better name needed, for sure) and an "Accoutrement Critique Tent" for example, would allow direct conversation, and much more might be learned.

[Jim Kibler]

A system requiring no additional thought or effort is already in place.  A builder approaches someone who has skill or knowledge in the type or style of rifle the builder likes and asks for a little time to discuss his gun.  Pretty simple.  Those who experience success in this stuff have done so in part because they love it.  It makes them happy to be able to help others.  I think the tendency today is to create opportunity after opportunity when oftentimes hard work, effort, interest, passion, etc. is the necessary ingredient for progress and continued success.  If someone takes the step forward they'll likely be rewarded.  Again, just my thoughts and I'll leave this topic at that.

Jim

[Dennis Glazener]

Sorry, but I have to ask...  Do you think "judging " of guns and the resultant competion is a good thing?  From an outsider's perspective this is much different than critique.  If it's worth anything, my personal view is that the idea and process, though well meaning, is not a good thing.  People sometimes seem to become motivated by the wrong reasons.  Further, the idea of a few well meaning people being actually able to "judge" a gun doesn't seem reasonable to me.  This stuff is quite different than say, grading a math test for example.  I will add one more opinion...  If a builder puts forth the effort and has passion and desire, there will be no shortage of peole willing to help.  Just one man's view.

Jim

Amen Jim!
Dennis

And another Amen for Rich!

Another idea is to have a tent at a show or fair such as this where folks could bring their guns by and have an opportunity to receive a critique from a rotating group of builders who have demonstrated some mastery.  A "Gun Critique Tent" (better name needed, for sure) and an "Accoutrement Critique Tent" for example, would allow direct conversation, and much more might be learned.

[wpalongrifle]

the opportunity to have a critique from your peers has always been hard for some people. when i first entered my first scratch built rifle over fifteen years ago, i got the worst score probable,, ever? took my licks and read my critique sheet!!! talked with everyone in the longrifle culture i could. who most where there. came back next year, re entered again and my scores got better!! learning process??? most table holders displaying there wears have all takin a path like this. it's too easy to judge someones work good or bad. person who entered this gun put a lot of sweat and hours doing such. each gun i judged this year got the same attention weather it was plain or fancy,one thing to remember is you as a builder/craftsmen come to Dixon's on your own free will,enter your rifles or horns,and reap the benefits? win or loose. we have to take the honesty of each piece entered by its maker. has the gunmakers fair changed with time? sure it has. coming up on it's 30 year anniversary something must be working??

[M.D.H.]

I’ve thought long and hard about whether to post on this or not.  It seems as though many individuals want to slam others for their different opinion vs understanding that the opinion, it is just that, a different opinion.  So hopefully you will all see this as my opinion, on this subject, and not a hard and fast rule or stance.  It’s very personal to me since I am personally invested in it. 

I am probably the newest Judge to the Dixions Fair, but am very glad to be part of it.  Wpalongrifle is correct in saying that we are looking for ways to improve the judging.  At the same time we are wanting to encourage new entrants, encourage them to take  risks, encourage them to be more artistic, and encourage them to continue to study, build and grow. 

The difficulty comes in the setting surrounding Dixons and the entrants perception.  (Perception is 9/10ths the law!!!) Typically when individuals are asking for honest critiques and directions, in an effort to enable themselves to grow, you don't provide an end result of winners and losers or best and worse.  An example is when the master would educate his apprentice on building.  The apprentice did not submit his final work to the master to move onto Journeyman UNTIL he was expecting to judged and receive some sort of benefit.  ie. becoming a journeyman or receiving a ribbon at Dixons.  In short, if you want a critique, don't expect a reward other than the information and the knowledge on how to improve.

On the other side you have entrants who are looking to receive or gain something.  They are looking for the ribbons, the competition and the ability to show their skill set.  There is NOTHING wrong with this and I personally feel that this is the great part of Dixons. Builders, myself included, have touted their winnings from Dixons at shows such as the CLA, Artisan Show, Folk Arms and Art, Muzzleblasts, and so on, and so on, and so on.  And they should do this.  They SHOULD be proud of what they have accomplished and SHOULD be recognized for it.  This is exactly like the apprentice reaching his Journeyman  or the Journeyman completing his final piece and receiving his Master status. 

But remember these are TWO TOTALLY different perceptions, ideology’s and goals.

To bring this full circle there needs to be an overall agreement/perception between the entrants and the judges.  This way everyone is on the same page and is not expecting more or less.  Maybe fielding the idea of TWO types of judging.  The entrant chooses if they are entering the gun for competitive purposes and to move from Apprentice to Journeyman to Master.  Or enter as an apprentice, Journeyman, Master with the purpose to grow and lean and use the critique sheet as a learning tool so that they can be encouraged to try new skills like carving, engraving and metal work.  Then when ready, submit their competitive piece. 

The last thought on this is that a clean gun will always win IN A COMPETITION.  An under hammer gun with no fore end and just a butt stock took Best of Class in Apprentice when I entered my own gun.  I missed taking Best of Class that year, because of my incise carved Indian head on my gun.  I was told that if it was not there I would have not been docked points and my score would have been lower than the gun that had won.  That didn’t stop me from building.  But it did clarify my perception as to what I wanted to gain from The Gun Makers Fair. 

Sincerely,
Matt

[Long John]

Friends,

Let me make one thing abundantly clear - I owe my development as a gunbuilder to the judging at the fair.  It taught me that "good enough" just wasn't!  As I was building my last rifle I was continually questioning whether this was the best that I could do, whether this was right, whether what I had done would pass muster with very knowledgable evaluators.  It made me a better craftsman and I am grateful.

Yet there are times that the judges seem to get it very wrong, when a highly finished rifle where the builder dared to tackle very challenging tasks summarily were judged to have produced a less exemplary gun than a plain gun where there were no risks taken.

This spreadsheet is a "first stab" at a method that would address the unintended consequences of the judging method.

Don is right there are always going to be people who mis-represent their work.  That will, sadly, always be a problem.  The geatest loser is the person who repudiates her/his personal integrity by doing so.

There is also a reality that cannot be rationally denied.  Winning ribbons at the Fair has a substantial potential financial impact, whether the judges like it or not.  When I picked up my squirrel rifle which picked up a 3rd place for carving, nobody came up to me and asked me to build them a rifle.  Two years later when I picked up my "Journey" riflegun with it's 6 ribbons no fewer than 6 people approached me to build them rifles before the day ended.  The Journey riflegun is a better gun, thanks to  the drubbing I got with my previous entry.  But the fact remains and we all know it; if I were an aspiring gun-builder, winning ribbons at the Fair is a great launch to realizing that aspiration.  That's the reality regardless of whether the judges like it or not!  Its like gravity - we have no control over it. 

So, this was a first stab at addressing the criticizms of the current judging regime.  I believe that my obligation to Chuck and our craft is to try to be part of a solution to a problem rather than part of it.  Do with it whatever you want.  Improve upon it, embrace it, reject it and toss it away.  What ever you do is OK because I will continue to be grateful for the effort the judges have donated to our craft and to us less-than-accomplished makers.

Best Regards,

JMC

[okieboy]

 I am with Jim on this. I like to see the dogs, but how can you say that a great terrier is better than a great sheepdog? There is no doubt that winning dog shows or gun shows brings financial rewards to people seeking financial rewards and interested in building to judges tastes rather than finding their own way. It also promotes an artificial sameness to the products that does not mirror the rich, sometimes boggling diversity found in the original pieces that fuel and inspire our passion.
 Enter gun shows if that is your pleasure, but I personally don't think it is actually going to bring out the very best part of you.

[flintriflesmith]

By posting this I am breaking my promise to myself to never discuss the judging of rifles -- originals as at the KRA or contemporary work at Dixons. Guess today is as good as any for ticking off some people.

As Jim K. and “okieboy” have said there are some problems inherent to the judging process. It appears to me that the worst in both cases is the part where the judges, and the judged, have to construct and agree upon a hypothetical model of the "ideal" rifle for each area (style & period) of competition. In that respect, part of this “mutual agreement” reminds me of judging Olympic gymnastics or diving --- just what constitutes a 10?

Some may say that’s easy. That in inletting, for example, only an absolutely perfect fit can get a maximum score. Or that in relief carving only a glass smooth background with no trace of chisel cuts in worthy of the highest marks. Picking those standards ignores the reality of period work on American longrifles. Far more original early rifles have the space for the lock internals “hogged out” than have the components fitted like those of a fine English double from Holland & Holland. Many original barrel channels are round in the bottom except at the breech and muzzle. Wet sanding the background of relief carving with 600 grit paper, the way my friend John Bivins did, requires great skill, and perhaps even more patience, but it doesn’t produce a rifle that has the look and feel of an original. John acknowledged this and often said he was actually making high-art Jaegers in a longrifle form.

When I’ve made statements like that before, some on this board have claimed that I am advocating sloppy, substandard work and that all modern builders should strive to the best of their ability for perfection. I will not try and change their minds. In a free market the customers will ultimately decide but unfortunately many of them have never had the opportunity to actually examine period work. They blindly trust the “experts,” like the judges, to tell them what is correct.

Another issue I personally have is that the judges at Dixons have in the past used standards they agreed upon among themselves that have very little to do with actual period work. A few years ago there was a great debate on the alignment of the pan fence with the rear of the barrel. Points were apparently deducted for failure to do this. Careful examination of original rifles will quickly tell you that some, if not many, of the old ones, were built by gunsmiths who “never got that memo.”  There are many other examples.

From an authenticity standpoint I would deduct points for modern “improvements” such as finishing inside patch boxes, under butt plates, and in barrel channels. I’d sure knock off points for using the modern overly-tall front and hind sights. The same for German silver mounts or inlays on a rifle that is supposed to be of a pre-1830 style. But that’s why I shouldn’t even discuss this subject in public...

Gary

[bgf]

Gary,
Amen.  Please deduct points for overly deep, bold, or ornate engraving and stiff, formal carving as well .  Also, I would hesitate to require light file marks or somewhat soft edges on the metal work, but they could be awarded bonus points if occurring at a natural frequency and not detracting from the overall work .

[jpldude]

Not to hijack the thread, but there is an answer to Okieboy's question which maybe food for thought in this discussion.

Okieboy asked: "I like to see the dogs, but how can you say that a great terrier is better than a great sheepdog?"

The dogs aren't being judged against each other. In a true, real dog show (thanks to the AKC that's rare these days), each dog is judged against the breed standard (for example: http://amstaff.org/Amstaff%20Standard.html), not against the other dogs.

The Beyer Club of America comes up with a standard for a Beyer Rifle. Gunsmiths enter their Beyer rifles. The Beyer judges look at the rifles, look at the standard and decide who's rifle is closest to the Beyer Standard. The process is repeated for the Shroyers, the Dickerts, the Molls, etc. At the end of the day the winner from each group goes in for judging for Best Of Show. Once again the judges aren't saying that this Beck is better than this Dickert. It's which rifle comes closest to its standard. If the Dickert gets 9 out of 10 & the Beck gets 7 out 10, the Dickert wins.


Anyway that's how it's supposed to work with dogs.

Thanks & Rgds,


John

[Pete G.]

I have to agree with Gary 100%. Of course we all want to do our best and competition brings out the best, but occasionally brings out the worst because of the winner/loser thing. The "super guns" being built today are certainly magnificent pieces, but the reality is that in most cases they are not historically accurate because of being close to perfect. Perhaps eliminating awards and simply returning a critique sheet could get back to the original intent of the fair, or maybe we should just go with it as is and enjoy this new "Golden Age of the American Longrifle"?

I personally prefer the historical aspect which is what attracted me to begin with, but if some prefer to build "super guns" and/or copies, then more power to them, and events like the fair help this aspect. All in all, like the old saying goes "There can be a fine line between hobby and mental illness", so let's all just hang on and enjoy the ride.

[ironwolf]

  Thank You,  Gary B.

[eagle24]

The standard is subjective as well as the judging.  Can't be done to please everybody and probably get a different result from a different panel of judges more times than not.  IMO, there is no answer to a process that would be anything close to perfect.

I have perfected my smoked back ribs.  There is no better tasting rib, but I couldn't win a bbq contest if my life depended on it.

[okieboy]

 jpldude, I think that the dogs that I look at are 10's against 10's. However here is a true "judging" story for you. A national duck calling contest, with the judges placed behind a screen so that they can't see the callers to prevent any favoritism or bias. A sportsman with a sense of humor enters a hen mallard. She came in third.
 Real Dickerts would probably fare the same way at the "Dickert Club", with a written comment "Should study modern work."

[J. Talbert]

While I will admit that entering your efforts into the judging at Dixon's is one means to improve your abilities, and I salute Chuck Dixon for his contributions to this pastime that we all enjoy, I am definitely in the camp with Jim K. Okieboy and Gary.
If a beginner is truly interested in improving, there are many capable builders, (and I'm talking about the best of the best), who are more than willing and even eager to share their expertise, and offer advise or a critique if asked.
I know because about 30 years ago,  I was a beginner hanging around campsites, Gunmakers Hall, and handful of booths along commercial row at Friendship, just eavesdropping on conversations and asking an occasional  question or two.  Eventually that lead to more extended conversations and, in time, a few good friendships with a number very good builders.
Along the way I've attended several of the workshops at WKU and elsewhere.  But the bottom line is that not once did I encounter one of these fellows who wasn't more than willing to answer a question, or give advice, sometimes for a complete stranger, me.
The irony is that many of these same builders are at Dixon's, and if not there, then almost surely at the CLA.

What could be better than learning from the best?

Jeff

[James]

I have read this thread with great interest. I have seen it written several times elsewhere that one should not build the gun better than the original builder would have. I completely understand striving for perfection. However, I think many people would fall short if they were to turn out the number of guns that the original smiths had to.

[jpldude]

Okieboy: or my other favorite "Patchbox too deep" or "Patchbox too shallow"

[bama]

Okieboy: or my other favorite "Patchbox too deep" or "Patchbox too shallow"

The difference between Dixon's and the old time builders is very simple. The modern builder in most cases is building as a hobby or part time business. Not many builders today build for a living. If you were having to build rifles to put bread on the table your view of what is quality would be much different. I personally think the old masters were more than capable of producing very fine arms. There problem was who could afford such an expensive arm. I have been instructed on my job that my level of quality is set by the client. Give the quality expected, no less, no more.

I could sell rifles all day long at say $800 but how many would I sell at $5000. So my point is building a rifle to be judged at Dixon's and building a rifle I know I can sell is two different things. The Dixon's rifle would be my very best effort and should be judged that way. My working man's rifle should be judged by a happy client.

The only problem I see is that quality that is strived for at Dixon's is started to be demanded for by the clients but they want that quality at a working man's gun price. That is hard to achieve.

As long as everybody has to play by the same rules I say judge what ever way you want. The winners will be happy and the others will go home and try to do better. The losers will wine and cry about the judging being unfair.