outlook on rifles changing

[chuck-ia]

Went to a shoot yesterday, over 30 shooters, flintlock only shoot. Quite a few custom rifles, a few builders there shooting. One very talented builder was loading at our bench, was very helpfull in answering our questions. I like to walk around all the benches and eyeball all the rifles. I am coming to the conclusion that the rifles that are not sanded, but scraped just look right. The perfectly smooth sanded rifles are nice, don't get me wrong, but I would bet sand paper was a luxury 250 years ago and not very available. (if at all) I wonder why more rifles aren't just scraped? Might be harder to scrape than sand? chuck

[JDK]

I think it has more to do with what you trying to achieve.  Some styles seem to have a smoother finish on surviving examples.  I don't feel scraping is any harder than sanding but perfer the scraped finish on a traditional longrifle as that appears to be the way the early American gunbuilder worked.

It maybe harder for the modern worker to resist sanding since it has been ingrained in our modern way of thinking and training and what allot of people expect to see.  Allot of early furniture was scraped but on modern pieces we expect to see a smooth, sanded finish.

To each their own, as they say.  J.D.

[The other DWS]

according to wiki:  "Sandpaper was originally known as glass paper, as it used particles of glass. Glass frit has sharp-edged particles and cuts well, sand grains are smoothed down and did not work well like sandpaper made from glass. Cheap counterfeit sandpaper has long been passed off as true glass paper; Stalker and Parker cautioned against it in the 17th century.[3]
Glass paper was manufactured by John Oakey's company in London by 1833, who had developed new adhesive techniques and processes, enabling mass production. A process for making sandpaper was patented in the United States on June 14, 1834 by Isaac Fischer, Jr., of Springfield, Vermont."

Prior to that rubbing compounds, varying degrees of sand and pumice (rottenstone) were used with dampened cloth pads.  also sharkskin and other abrasive natural material were used since time immemorial.  Scrapers were probably more commonly available and the skill of creating, maintaining, and using them was part of an apprentice's training.   As commercial abrasives became more common and affordable they replaced the scraper for almost all commercial and amateur woodworking.  The use of scrapers has been perpetuated by some traditional craftsmen and was/is practiced at many of the "living history" craft sites.  I believe it has made its way back into gunbuilding via the living history programs.

Its not as convenient as sandpaper since you have to learn how to handle them on complex surfaces and creating an maintaining a good working edge  is a learned skill. Most of us learned our basic woodworking in a shop or school shop that used sandpaper. Precious few of us were exposed to finish-scrapers.  I'd guess that most of the widely circulated "long rifle building guides" deal with sandpaper in the finish process and only mention using scrapers, if at all, in a passing historic reference.

[LH]

I've finished one rifle that I only scraped, and in my experience, the grain of the wood doesnt show as well as sanded fine would.  Maybe thats one reason alot of contemporary builders sand?  Most well made contemporary guns are built on a fancy piece of wood.   At least I "think" they are.  Its probably like JDK said though,  thats just the way we've been trained to think.

[The other DWS]

Did you burnish the wood after scraping and staining?
  I'm not sure about gunmakers, but some of the other historic wood craft trades burnished or "boned" wood by rubbing it with bone or other hard polished smooth objects.
 Many of the old-style shellac/wax and laquer finishes were also rubbed out with moistened felt and varying degrees of "rotten-stone" (pumice ground in grades of fineness)  It would also work with cured oil finishes I imagine.

[Acer Saccharum]

Every era has its technology, and it shows in the products from the time period. In the 18th Century, your choices were limited. If you want the 18th Century look, something that showed up from 200 years ago, then you have to use the tools that were available at the time.

Early on in the timeline of your project, you need to decide whether you're going to be traditional or contemporary. A glossy, super finish looks out of place on a 1760's rifle. Conversely, a scraped and oiled finish would not look right on a 2012 bolt action sporting rifle.

Because there are so many options for finishing, it's a good idea to spend some thought time on your concept of a finished product. Study someone's work you admire, want to replicate, ask some questions, etc.

Gun building is very complicated, and many choices present themselves to you along the way. I actually like this part of the process. There are so many unknowns when I start a gun, and through the stages of the build, different options present themselves during the build. It's almost as if the object is working its way to completion through me, rather than me having a plan, and forcing it upon the materials.

But I digress.

Tom

[Dphariss]

Went to a shoot yesterday, over 30 shooters, flintlock only shoot. Quite a few custom rifles, a few builders there shooting. One very talented builder was loading at our bench, was very helpfull in answering our questions. I like to walk around all the benches and eyeball all the rifles. I am coming to the conclusion that the rifles that are not sanded, but scraped just look right. The perfectly smooth sanded rifles are nice, don't get me wrong, but I would bet sand paper was a luxury 250 years ago and not very available. (if at all) I wonder why more rifles aren't just scraped? Might be harder to scrape than sand? chuck

People have been smoothing wood for probably 100000 years at least.
I find it difficult to believe that in the 100k years prior to 1750/70/90 that they did not learn how to remove scraper makes IF THEY WANTED TO.
Everyone works to a standard.
I would also point out that a great many  antique guns have not the slightest vestige of the original finish left.
Guns with obvious scraper marks were apparently made to a lower standard than the ones without scraper marks.
Then we have the apprentice connection. Do you think the master in the shop did ALL the work?
Acceptable guns that went out of the Masters shop left with his name on them no matter who made them.
Winchester, for example never stocked a firearm in his life so far as anyone knows. But there are lots of guns out there with his name on them.
Then we have the spectre of some subsequent owner reworking the gun at some point.
So its hard to determine what is the original makers work and what may have been done at some later date to remove a linseed varnish blackened over time by sulfur in the air from the coal virtually everyone used for heating and industry in the eastern US.
A coat of varnish BTW will obscure scraper marks to a considerable extent unless its a spirit varnish or one of the modern thin as water versions.
What I see in this fascination over crudely finished guns is an idea that people in the past lacked the SKILL and KNOWLEDGE to make a smooth surface on wood. There is a difference in not having the capability and not bothering  to do it for what ever reason.
Dan

[Acer Saccharum]

Dan, you bring up some good points...the grade of guns and the finish relates to how much time was spent on the finish.

In my experience, all scraper mark disappear by the time I'm done rubbing the oil out. I don't fuss over the marks, they just disappear. This has a lot to do with finishing with a SHARP scraper, and not pressing down hard for the final scrape. When the wood is pressed hard, it compresses, only to swell back out again someday, no predicting when.

Scraper marks fade as the gun gets used, the wood gets polished, leaving a glossy/satiny finish. Another good point Dan makes is that most guns have been refinished, so who's to say what's original anymore?

The gun below is my copy of an original.  I would call this a workmanlike gun, certainly not fancy, but one where the maker knew what he was doing. It was a tool, and finished up to do the job at hand.  Yes, some minor tool marks are evident in areas where there is no wear, like under the cheekpiece, but overall, it's well finished. To me, this is a believable reproduction. But that is all subjective, and for each of us builders, we all have a different story that goes with our product.

There is no helping developing small facets when scraping. Maybe a thinner, more flexible scraper would eliminate the facets entirely, but they are not a problem to me, as the stock wears, everything softens and blends. i don't consider this to be a crude finishing method, but a practical one.

Certainly, on a high end gun, I'd put in more time to develop a blemish-free finish.

[Jim Kibler]

One important to consider is that the degree to which a gun is finished is not necessarily a reflection of how succesful the gun is or the quality of the gun.  From an aesthetic standpoint surface texture can be an important factor in the appeal of a final product.  To take it a bit further, this sufvace texture is not just random.  There are good tool marks and bad tool marks.  A surface completely void of texture and tool marks reads very different than one containing them.  Less highly finished doesn't mean lower quality from an artistic and aesthetic point of view.

[Acer Saccharum]

Good points, Jim. I like to leave traces of my handwork, because it shows the object is handmade. And, to your point, this does not mean that it's shoddy work, or low in quality(in my opinion  ). I appreciate your comment about surface texture as being an important part of the whole.

I do not believe in perfection, for no matter how hard one tries, it cannot be achieved. The pursuit of perfection is a road fraught with anger and disappointment. Therefore, I strive for happiness with the process, with the finished product.

[Dphariss]

I am sorry but less highly finished does and always has indicated lower quality.
Just a fact.
In "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles" Forsythe tells us that is better to buy a first quality gun from a lesser known maker than a second or third quality gun from a big name. The lower quality guns are simply lower quality THROUGH OUT. Its not as though the best grade guns are just third grade guns with better wood and engraving, the best grade guns get more care throughout. The lower grade guns have had shortcuts since they ARE lower grade guns, they buy second or third quality locks and barrels etc etc rather than "best".
The lesser known makers "best" might well be as good as the best from the big name maker but his price is lower since he does not have the name.
"Perfect" work. Not going to happen. But what is the harm in trying?

Dan

[Tom Currie]

I think were talking two different ideas here. Sort of apples and oranges. 1 ) Level of finish as artistic impression vs 2) level of finish as a reflection or represenation of the overall manufacturing process. 

Certainly view #1 does not reflect lack of overall quality to me.

[JDK]

I know this started as a "sanded vs. scraped" thread.

Tom Currie nailed it right.  It's an appearance, feel thing, not a quality of work thing.

Dan, If you take the best builder and he assembles two rifles from the same components and chooses to scrape one stock and sand the other, are you telling us that the that one is inferior quality wise?  Come on, really? 

Let's stay on point here,  J.D.

 

[Jim Kibler]

I am sorry but less highly finished does and always has indicated lower quality.
Just a fact.

Dan

Well, I can't say whether a lesser suface finish was universally an indication of lower quality in the past, but I can tell you that it's not looked as such today.   You need to get out more man!  Besides, if an accurate depiction of a longrifle is the goal, a less than "perfect" finish is more appropriate. Ask those who are regarded as the better builders today this question and see what you get.  Ask those who buy this work today and see what answer you get.  I'm sorry, but I think your stuck in the 70's and 80's approach driven by Bivins.  Before you blow a gasket, consider that this is coming from someone who has gone to great pains in search of the "perfect" surface finish.  I've finished other guns more coarsely and they have their place as well.  One is not necessarily better than the other in my view.  Some prefer one approach.  I can appreciate both.  I'll post a few photos of a more coarsely finished gun when I get a chance.

Jim

[The other DWS]

If one struggles hard and manages to make an excellent 99% accurate copy of a specific rifle that was less than perfect in design, quality of workmanship or materials;  would that mean that the man who made the reproduction was doing a poor job.  
 While I think that one should work to the very best of ones capability, and while some certainly are more accomplished as artists artisans and craftsmen; I think one has to look at how well one accomplishes the objective.  To me, a perfect fit, top most quality furniture and components, or impeccable sanded and polished finish, alone or in combination, won't cut it unless the design and the execution of it meet the objective.

I'd go so far as to say that if you were recreating a used or "working grade" rifle a flawess polished finish would be out of place

JMHO of course

[Dphariss]

If the concern that poor exterior finish (the shaping and all the rest) relating to the overall quality is not apparent.

For example, if the maker can't properly shape and finish a stock why would I think he can properly assemble the other parts? Did he dovetail the barrel too deep in the waist for example. I rebarreled a rifle that was sloppily breeched by the barrel maker then dovetailed far too deep in the waist by the "stocker". And the exterior was not properly done either by a considerable margin. The lock was a Siler and was OK.  So in this case the exterior lived up to the interior. It looked poorly done on the outside and had serious problems out of sight until disassembled.
If the concept of quality work done the best of the persons ability vs intentional flaws is impossible to understand.

If properly assembled or made parts vs parts that are the product of apathy or sloth or stupidity (and they are out there) is too difficult to comprehend...
If the difference between someone striving to do the best work he can vs someone who intentionally leaves things undone cannot be understood.
Then there is little chance of what I am trying to relate being understood as I intend.


Dan

[Dphariss]

If one struggles hard and manages to make an excellent 99% accurate copy of a specific rifle that was less than perfect in design, quality of workmanship or materials;  would that mean that the man who made the reproduction was doing a poor job.  
 While I think that one should work to the very best of ones capability, and while some certainly are more accomplished as artists artisans and craftsmen; I think one has to look at how well one accomplishes the objective.  To me, a perfect fit, top most quality furniture and components, or impeccable sanded and polished finish, alone or in combination, won't cut it unless the design and the execution of it meet the objective.

I'd go so far as to say that if you were recreating a used or "working grade" rifle a flawess polished finish would be out of place

JMHO of course

In the first place there is seldom "perfect" in the world of firearms. The closest you are likely to get is a best quality known maker English shotgun or rifle of the late 19th or first 1/2 of the 20th century. Or someone doing similar work today. But I do not believe the English gun trade, in general, is now what it was 100 years ago.
So far as making copies. Its impossible to make an accurate copy unless the original gun is there for reference and even then its not likely to be identical. So if the guy got within 1% my hat is off.
Why would someone work hard to reproduce faulty workmanship, faulty inletting perhaps? What is the point? Correct the workmanship. Simple concept.
Don't copy ugly guns is the other idea. This is a concept that far too many in the world of reproduction Kentucky rifles do not understand.  Either they cannot SEE the problem or think it looks cool and don't care about practicality.
I don't know which. Just because its old is not sign it was right or even stocked by the guy that signed the barrel.
I wish I could have videoed a friends comments on a DVD of contemporary guns a couple of years ago. It would have been priceless. But people here would not like it. He started making MLs when I was a little kid if not before.

Please define "working gun". There was no such thing in Colonial America or even later at least I am not aware of the term being used. People used expensive guns this is obvious by the wear and tear on many of them. The St Louis Hawken Mountain Rifles were not cheap but they were working rifles for the most part. Very few frills on average. But they were expensive for the time. 3-4 times the typical rifle of the east. Legend says that Murphy shot Frasier with a double barreled rifle, these cost 3-4 times the price of a good rifle. Yet he carried it on a military campaign.


Dan

[dannybb55]

I wonder how many of the old smiths had poor vision, like me, and couldn't resolve imperfections in their finishing process?

[JDK]

If the concern that poor exterior finish (the shaping and all the rest) relating to the overall quality is not apparent.  Dan

First, the only one relating anything to do with anything other than sanding vs. scraping is you.  Shaping and the other nuances if gun building aren't being related in this thread.

It appears that you are under the impression that a scraped finish leaves an inferior finish with scratches and gouges etal.  Jim was right you need to get out more.  The scraped finish we are referring to has nothing to do with shaping or leaves scratches and gouges all over the stock.  I assure you there are some very beautiful guns out here that have scraped (not scratched) finishes.  J.D.

[The other DWS]

Dan, do you think the "schimmel" or "barn guns" that seem to attract a lot of interest simply old worn out beat up guns or just lower priced and lower quality guns of a more utilitarian quality to start with.  I don't argue with you that shoddy is shoddy and it shows.  But I am inclined to think that even the best gunbuilders built more than one grade of rifle to meet the financial needs of their customers.  Maybe there were some that were such artists that all they built was top quality and they had a reputation and could afford to only build for the customers who could and would pay the price.  Not everyone could afford a Cadillac or a Lincoln there had to be a market for Fords and Chevys too.

I suspect that this is one area where our collective perceptions of style, quality, and design are skewed by the nature of the "survivors" we have to study. This is not a problem unique to the antique firearms arena.
 High quality arms owned by folk who are not having to use them all the time tend to get preserved.  At the other end of the scale the less expensive "working guns" or "using guns" get used and used up and lost to us except for the rare example and the old "barn guns" tucked away in the rafters and forgotten to be discovered generations later.

What and why we choose to build or recreate is a very personal thing.  Some very clearly enjoy the challenge of attempting to make a rifle that is representative of the very best a historic builder could achieve, looking the way it left the "show-room floor".  Its a worthy challenge and the results can be awe-inspiring.  It clearly brings out the best and highest of the contemporary craft.  However others see and enjoy other approaches; but they too can apply their best skills and abilities toward their goals.

[Jim Kibler]

Here are a few photos of a gun I built that  was finished less carefuly than usual for me.  If looking at it in person, the texture and tool marks would be much more aparent.  This was built for a friend that didn't want to spend a great deal, so a good piece of wood was used, but little carving or other adornment was included on the rifle.  The stock was heavily scraped to create surface texture and the finish was colored to create variation and interest.  To me, these surface treatments add a considerable amount of appeal to a rifle that is otherwise a bit lackluster in some respects.  I might add, another good example of surface texture on a rifle is one by George Potter shown in the last American Tradition.

[JDK]

Nicely done Sir and a perfect example for the content of this string.  I am a fan of your work.  Perhaps Mr. Phariss will post a longrifle he's built to show a comparison to make his point.

We could debate at length whether or not the builders of original longrifle builders sanded or scraped but the point has been belabored in the past here.  Even if sandpaper had been available to the early gun builder I would argue that as a matter of economics it just makes sense that they scraped, at least to some degree.  Whether they did so exclusively on every gun is open to debate I suppose.  Irregardless, scraping has been excepted as a correct and desirable (to some) finish for rifles of that period built today.

Thanks for posting, J.D.

[dagner]

 seems like all the makers i know   fall into 2 camps. the scrappers like a nice  warm soft finsh not  deep reflective shiney finish. something that the  1760 people would carry  to hunt with. the sanders seem to go for the ultra shiney supper deep finishes that bring out all the color and stripe /character of the wood.real pretty but usually a show piece.sees a lot of showing but not much shooting. think about how many of these you have seen in the  deep woods  deer camps.
 i have both all deponds on what you want .no right answer
dag

[Robby]

I have fooled around with many finishes made from recipes found here and some of my own concoctions. I have come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that if all those early early guns left the shop with a finish, it was a hard, glossy shine. Many of the finishes were fairly soft and dulled down pretty fast, but when they left the shop, they were shiny! I don't know that it would hide tool marks on the wood, but it seems like it would divert attention away from any subtlety like a scraper mark, at least when new.
Beautiful gun Jim!!
Robby

[JDK]

  i have both all deponds on what you want .no right answer
dag

Dag,  I believe you are wrong....and right.    You have both because both are correct.....all depends what you are going for.  There are endless variations in school, region, urban vs. rural, material availability.....on and on.  It comes down to taste is all.  It's not wrong to sand if that is the desired effect you want....but conversely, it is not wrong to scape in some cases if that is the effect that is desired.

Robby,  Great point about thick finishes.  They can be very forgiving.  J.D.