Let's critique this gun

[Mike Brooks]

Maybe a good exercise for the day.
 It's a New England gun which I refer to as a "Liberty" gun. These were made during the Rev war. to ensure all males of eligable age in a family were armed. Built cheaply and quickly many times with only a bare minimum of parts.
 46" octg/rnd 20 bore barrel Chambers lock 13 1/2" pull, curly red maple stock.
http://www.fowlingguns.com/librty2.html

[smart dog]

Hi Mike,
It is a very nice looking gun that blends French and English influences.  It could easily represent the work of any number of New England makers.  I like the way you shaped the lock panel moldings as the narrow borders give it an authentic period look.  That is an area many current makers fail to get right with respect to the period they are trying to represent.  You also left on just about the right amount of wood to be authentic.  Overall it is a fine gun given your objectives.  I don't care for antiquing but that is just my personal preference.  You certainly have great skill in that area. 

dave 

[Mike Brooks]

C'mon gents, don't be shy. I purposely chose this gun because there is not much decoration to clutter the eye.  If you think it's a piece of crapola say so and say why you think so. Could make a great discussion.

[bgf]

I don't know much about that type of gun though I like it in general, but one thing that looks a little below par is the signature on the barrel.  Isn't flowing script or stamped block letters more common, or is the scribbled small-cap signature the way they did it then and there?

[hanshi]

C'mon gents, don't be shy. I purposely chose this gun because there is not much decoration to clutter the eye.  If you think it's a piece of crapola say so and say why you think so. Could make a great discussion.

[/color]



Ah, ha!  Rare vulnerability you're showing, Mike.  Well just set yourself down and see what I do with my school teacher's blackboard pointer.

Honestly, the wood is attractive and I (personally) like the styling.  The trigger seems out of place on a meat and potatoes gun.  The dings look "added on" and not convincingly authentic.  I have trouble placing it in a school/category/style that fits the (complete) build.  The overall impression is of a very plain working gun (what you were after, obviously).   I've seen better but I suppose I've seen worse.

Now that we've established that it's trash, I'll let you send it to me and I promise not to post pics or admit you made it.   It will spend inordinate amounts of time in the woods as the sight of it would probably sicken those at the rendezvous.

[smart dog]

C'mon gents, don't be shy. I purposely chose this gun because there is not much decoration to clutter the eye.  If you think it's a piece of crapola say so and say why you think so. Could make a great discussion.

Hi Mike,
Honest critiques do not have to be negative.  You stated your objectives very well and met them without any flaws obvious to me.  If you tried to pass the gun off as something else other than your objective,  I might have a lot to say.  You really did not choose a good piece for this exercise.  You have the design and execution of workmanlike English and American fowlers down pat.  I suspect you could build one in your sleep.  Moreover, the guns you are portraying by default likely showed a great deal of rustic styling and details that permit you a lot of leeway with respect to design and execution.  If you want more intense critiques then put up a gun that really challenged your skills. 

dave

[Mike Brooks]

If you want more intense critiques then put up a gun that really challenged your skills.

Now that is an interesting comment. I generally won't work outside of my comfort zone these days. I used to and not only was I not satisfied with the results, I had to take a beating just to work on the gun. My intrests have wandered across many styles over the years. Currently I don't take orders for anything with a hooked breech, 1/2 stock or keys.Those are all things can do and have done in the past but just don't enjoy. Same with flint doubles. Just too much work. (read challenge).
 I also rarely take on the classic KY rifles that most of you enjoy building. I have done them, but I useually refer customers to you guys that do them so much better than I that have studied them intensly for years. I enjoy the early rifles with  unidentifiable schools as it gives me way more artistic license, which I find very enjoyable. What I really enjoy is interesting archetecture and color. Quirky goes a long way for me too.
 I guess I only want to build what turns my crank these days...early period french and english trade guns and about anything in grinslades book. Mainly because of the incredible history these guns have. Besides, I only have about a decade left to build, God willing.
 Thanks for the comment, very thought provoking for me I hope you all are patient with that rambling....

[Mike Brooks]

I don't know much about that type of gun though I like it in general, but one thing that looks a little below par is the signature on the barrel.  Isn't flowing script or stamped block letters more common, or is the scribbled small-cap signature the way they did it then and there?

Good observation. I engrave the way I write, If I used a script signature it would be illegible. The signature I use is in block letters which was  common as well and I'm told very difficult to do well when compared to foliar engraving. I'm not as talented an engraver as many of the builders here, but feel my engraving is as good or better than many/most of the colonial built originals. I feel I can hold my own with most of the trade gun stuff from the english and french as well.
 I'm not making excuses, but for alot of colonial work you can put too good of decoration on a gun.  I'm always tying to improve my engraving, but it's a pretty bumpy road at times.

[flintriflesmith]

Mike,
I'm glade Smart Dog posted and that you gave his comments a thoughtful reply.

We all tend, eventually, to become somewhat specialized in our interests and our work. Those specializations for me have evolved over time but, as one movie character said, "A man has to know his limitations."

For me to critique your effort at a Rev War New England militia gun would be crazy. I bought a copy of Grinslade's book but the subject is so far from my field of interest that about all I ever did was glance through it for the pretty pictures. I remain ignorant on the subject of New England smoothbores.

Isn't it great that the subjects and the customer base is so diverse. Different strokes for different folks!

Gary

[Mike Brooks]

"A man has to know his limitations."

Ain't that the truth?  Thanks Gary, I really appreciate your participation.

[Keb]

I will jump in and show my ignorance with what I like & don't like about the gun.
I like them trade guns; plane, simple & to the point. I like the trigger guard but I'm not too fond of using screws on a budget minded gun. It seems a pin would be more appropriate. I also don't like the fact it has no butt plate, not even a sheet plate (That's just me). I don't know if it's proper to have the lock tail so low but it doesn't look good to me. I love the wood & color although a barn door could have those same features. The fit & finish are superb.
In conclusion, I'd be proud to own it.

[Joe S]

I like the top and bottom lines on the butt, however I think the butt has too much pitch.  I measured the pitch at about 78 degrees.  Most folks do better with about 85 degrees.  Just guessing, but it looks like it could use a little more drop in the wrist too, just to keep your thumb out of your nose.  The trigger seems too elaboate for the rest of the gun.  I like the stain.  The carving is nice – somewhere between simple and simplistic.  That fits very well with NE fowlers.  The slots on the screws may be too well centered. 

The engraving on the barrel is appropriate.  It seems like most of the engraving I see these days is too good for an American gun.  Fine engraving is appropriate on a continental gun, and a few American guns, but for the most part, I find that guns with engraving that is too good lose a lot of the human warmth that the originals had. 

[Dan'l 1946]

  Hi Mike,
       I have seen a number of originals and this piece fits right in with this type of musket. These "bitsa" guns, reflecting war time expediency in their simplicity, are a favorite of mine. This gun captures the flavor of these old guns perfectly. As far as I know, no two originals were alike as parts were recycled from older arms, which leaves room for artistic license. Great work Mike!
                                                    Dan

[Eric Kettenburg]

I very much like the gun and I genuinely can not find much to criticize, especially when viewed OUT of a contemporary context and within the context of the antiques which it is meant to emulate (and emulate, without being a copy, which I also appreciate very much).  My sole hang up is the tang region.  I would not have any hang up, but because you opted to work a bit of simple molding in around the nose of the comb, I now feel that there is something missing somewhere.  In other words, I sense a bit of unbalance.  What I would *personally* like to see is a very simple raised molding around the tang.  No big beavertail or anything like that, or any kind of full blown carving, just something small and simple that would hug the sides of the tang itself and extend beyond the end a bit with some kind of rounded or otherwise graceful termination.  I think this would (a) balance out the comb molding, and (b) add some zip to the lock/tang region.

Just my opinion based upon what I like to see.  I do tip my hat to your knowledge of fowling guns and I do realize that this piece is fully within the realm of what one would expect to find in a piece built during the period for its intended purpose.

[b bogart]

I like the way the lock panels blend into the stock as opposed to being "scooped"out. I hope that makes sense? The long wrist also is very attractive. I'm not much for the aging. but that's just me. I even appreciate that the lock panels are not perfectly symetrical. I too would like to see a buttplate of some kind on there.
Is the stain on this one your orange "toner" prime coat? I like the curl definition.
Just a rank amatuers observations. Maybe I'll learn something from this thread!

[Mike Brooks]

These are great and well thought out comments guys, keep them coming!. I gottaeat my diner now and watch a movie now. Some have brought up  some great points that I would like to comment on tomorrow morning.  I really appreciate every ones'd participation. I hope you all are learning as much as I am, all thought provoking....

[aflo]

Okay, I will take up the challenge. Perhaps I am crazy to do so.

Keep in mind, I am a total newbie to the long rifle scene, having only joined up in the last few months, and having only built one rifle. I have virtually no qualifications on the historical aspects of the various schools and can only make comments based on my opinion of the aesthetics themselves. Since I don’t know what the proper gun would look like relative to the historical aspects, any comments I may make might end up being criticisms of the “school” rather than Mike Brooks.
Nonetheless, I have been a professional industrial designer for many decades and have the degree, awards and experience to match – so my aesthetic opinions should have some validity from that standpoint. I will have to leave it to others to sort out between the “school” issues and these personal yet professional opinions.

So, strictly from an aesthetic standpoint, from one who is not informed on many of the critical issues.….

The wrist on this gun gets really skinny toward the rear and this is not attractive at all. Furthermore, it is so skinny that by the time it finally gets up to the breach plug area it makes that area look much too thick, especially from the left side.
The forestock is too skinny from the ramrod entry point forward, relative to the forestock between that point and the lock area. Of course it could be the reverse that is causing the problem. The overly slender wrist is also a factor in making the forestock immediately ahead of the lock area look too heavy. Also, the rather light color of the ramrod is a negative factor in terms of the visual lack of weight of the forestock. If it were darker, the totality of everything might be better. I can’t really tell from the photos but I also suspect the ‘section’ of the forestock in front of the lock is baggy toward the bottom.
The butt is very thick at the rear and rather ‘clubby’ looking, particularly when seen from above. Again, not appealing, especially with no metal.
The shape of the left side lock area fights with the forward lock bolt and is a bit crudely done at the top near the barrel.
The bottom line on the butt going back to the toe is not a good line, being too curved toward the rear. I would like to see this curvature distributed a little more forward on the line.
The line of the butt in side view also seems to be poorly posed vertically and kind of leans back at the top. This strikes me as wrong but maybe that is what the school calls for.

There are many aspects of this rifle that are very very nice. The craftsmanship, the wood finish, etc. are all masterfully done, far beyond my feeble attempts.

[Acer Saccharum]

Mike, one thing that stands out just slightly, and I can't tell if it's the photo-fisheye effect, or it's the geometry of the gun: the grio between lock and first pipe looks too parallel to my eye. Then all the tapering occurs from the entry pipe to the muzzle. This just looks a little awkward, it doesn't have great visual 'flow'.

I have been told Hudson River guns used red maple. I don't know if this is true, or why; speculation abounds. The breech section, wrist and buttstock are excellent conformation from what I have seen on New England guns. just because it was made for utilitarian purposes, doesn't mean it can't look good. There is something a bit quirky about the NE guns, and you captured that very well.

I prefer your aging style over 'new' treatments for guns of this type, but that is just my preference.

Thanks for taking this topic by the horns.

Tom

[bgf]

I don't know much about that type of gun though I like it in general, but one thing that looks a little below par is the signature on the barrel.  Isn't flowing script or stamped block letters more common, or is the scribbled small-cap signature the way they did it then and there?

Good observation. I engrave the way I write, If I used a script signature it would be illegible. The signature I use is in block letters which was  common as well and I'm told very difficult to do well when compared to foliar engraving. I'm not as talented an engraver as many of the builders here, but feel my engraving is as good or better than many/most of the colonial built originals. I feel I can hold my own with most of the trade gun stuff from the english and french as well.
 I'm not making excuses, but for alot of colonial work you can put too good of decoration on a gun.  I'm always tying to improve my engraving, but it's a pretty bumpy road at times.

Fair enough.  That was all I could find to really nit pick, and it was just an impression of how the engraving compared to the quality of the rest of the work, not that it was awful.  If you hadn't asked for critiques emphatically, I would never even have offered that, given the woeful lack of any engraving skill I have.   

After thinking about this and given your gift for aging quite convincingly, the rather random barrel inscription on the Alfred Gross rifle came to mind: "Warranted if well us'd" !

[IKE]

Mike
I like it!
I wish my best effort was as good as your worst. I like the fowlers but I can’t get the right feel to come out. I do much better on the southern guns.
Jerry Eitnier

[smallpatch]

Mike,

You know I LOVE your guns.  It's difficult for me, and I dare say, most others to critique your "art".  Here's why..... we have drilled into our heads from day one, that we MUST follow schools, styles, areas, etc., and they are supposed to look a certain way.  Therefore, everything we judge is based on that perspective.

BUT.... you my friend, just don't follow the rules.  I think that's why everyone is grasping at straws as to critique this gun.

It's freaking awesome.  It's your brain child.  Doesn't look like anything we've ever seen before, so (like some have responded already)  pointing out little details that they can pick out that they like or don't like, etc. Again, based on those preconceived biases.
I think we also romanticize the quality of early American builders.  We build "perfect" guns, (or try to), when in fact THEIRS WERE NOT PERFECT. Most weren't the quality of most of the builders of today.
You seem to be able to capture that quality perfectly.
OK, I hope some of that made sense.  Now I'll go back to building my "between the lines" guns and my own mediocrity.

Love that gun!!!

[Don Getz]

Mike........I'm on your side, love the gun.  I really like making these barn guns and have never seen an original like them.
I am kind of peeved that I didn't think of doing a fowler.    I kind of feel sorry for some of these guys and their comments,
no imagination.  They would really jump around if I posted a picture of my Christian Springs barn gun, I really like it and
belongs to a local friend of mine.  Someone also commented on the angle of the butt.   I have gone that way also and they feel great.  I also have to ding one up just for fun, make it look used............Don

[Don Tripp]

To make a gun that is not a copy of another gun and for it to still look correct in it's historical context is to me an ultimate goal. You have achieved that with this as Eric pointed out. My interest lean more toward rifles but I can appreciate any well made firearm. I'm always impressed with subtle details when I view the work of many of the builders on this site. The nose of the comb looks slim and graceful to my eye, I've been guilty of leaving too much wood in that area as well as the fore stock which should also be slim as this one is.

[B Shipman]

I agree with Eric K. in terms of balance, but fundamentally it's excellent. Style, color. The little tip of the lock and certain other things, I feel, are classic with this type of gun and only add. I would never do it, I'd try to be perfect. But if I could'nt appreciate it after 30 yrs., with all the access I've had, I'd be an idiot.

[Vomitus]

  I really like this gun but I don't qualify for critique. But I'd like to say that the Grinslades book really throws open the door for fowlers,especially the New Englanders.Gosh,there must be 50 different styles,maybe more.