Let's critique this gun

[Bob Roller]

Criticism,Schmiticism. Pferdscheiss. When someone,especially a novice is making a rifle or pistol or fowler,and doing it for his own amusement,why should he worry about any "schools"? I used to get call asking what school my locks were from and I said "Grade School,Middle School and High School." There are all sorts of skill levels on this Forum ranging from hackers to the superb and as a charter member of that first group,I refuse to worry about what anyone thinks about my work.
I enjoy looking at all of them regardless.
Relax,life is too short and we are dead too long to get an aneurysm over a metal and wood project.

Bob Roller

[Don Getz]

My feelings on a first gun.   You can't go wrong by copying an old gun.   I think you have to earn the right to be creative
by showing that you can build a good gun.  Too many first gun builders use a "super" grade of stock which doesn't make
sense..........it is something you are "learning" on, don't spend that extra money on a super piece of wood.  Check out
Kibler's guns...many of them are plain wood but look great.............Don

[Jim Thomas]

I have about 3 or 4 failed stock attempts  proped up in a corner back by the water heater.   Better believe you want to go inexpensive.   The fastest trip I ever made from Lancaster to Lebanon was the day I was learning to driving a 49 nicholson rasp.  

A few years back, I recall seeing a rifle with a reasonable price tag on the wall of a gas station over in New Albany.   The road from hack to master is paved the same for everyone I suppose.    I once ran into David Dodds at the Warrior Run event and we talked about building.   I told him I can't get away from the experimental stage.   What looks right now, dosn't look right a month later, finishes, methods, you name it.   He just just laughed.  His encouragement from that day lives with me.     Of course, I'm still very much of a hack but I can see improvement too.  (Thanks David..where ever you are.)

 

[Jack Hubbard]

Made up American pieces are like American hot rods....Use whatever you got to make it work.....I have several pics of "made up" pieces...No "school", just "made up" guns or fowlers....I would have done something around the tang and not the comb....But thats how Mikes sees the piece....Its a neat gun....Works.....I have always liked what Mike does ...A big influence on what I try and do....

[bob in the woods]

Fowling guns are just my cup of tea !   All I need to know is whether I like it or not.  I would be more than happy to own that gun. I'm particularly fond of the wrist , and the lack of a buttplate or sideplate.  The only subjective wish I have is that I would prefer a 16 or 12 bore     
Honestly, if I can sometime afford a gun from you, it would be pretty much the same.

[Eric Kettenburg]

A few years back, I recall seeing a rifle with a reasonable price tag on the wall of a gas station over in New Albany.

You sure that wasn't at Red's Mobil in Wyalusing?

[westerner]

 I dont like it! 

There, I critiqued it.   

    Joe.

[Gaeckle]

Looks like a simple, used (but not abused) gun that was built for function and not for eye candy. It's a "what you see is what you get" item........

I like the overall looks of it but the only item I see that could invoke a critique is the area of the comb and the way the comb is mated into the wrist area. Being so plain and simple, the gun has a very pleasing look: there is no junk to get in way of the overall appearence of the gun (carving, inlay).

That little bit of carving or stepping at the juncture of the wrist and comb just doesn't (in my mind......but that's been gone for a while) fit with the simpleness of the overall gun.......no butplate, no entry thimble (I can't see one), simple forms, simple lines.....in my mind it isn't needed...........

But overall, It looks good and it looks like it has been used and has a long life ahead of it.........

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'm waiting for Art to chime in and say that it looks great but it needs a "repair."   

I think you need to grung-ify it some more.  hahahahahahhahahaha

I really like the piece of wood you used for this, and whatever you did to bring the figure out is working 100%.  I LOVE red maple.

[bob in the woods]

Eric, if I may ...my  favorite guns of yours are the plain sans buttplate ones as well. Someday I hope to be able to order a rifle ,with red maple stock, one thimble, wood butt, scraped finish etc.   A fowling piece from M.  Brooks, and a rifled barrel gun from E. K.  .....Ah....perfection 

[Don Getz]

One of my favorite guns was one built by Jud Brennan.   It was a non-typical barn gun.  Very red in color with the finish
rubbed thru to reveal a yellow undercolor.    It has a wood box one it, the heel of the butt (remember, it had no buttplate)
was shaped and faceted like a buttplate.    This gun was last owned by a friend of mine who passed away about 6 months ago, not really sure where it is now...............Don

[smylee grouch]

Wow Mike, the coments so far cover alot of teritory. I like the gun but dont understand why you used such an attractive chunck of wood for a plain style of gun. Was this something that was done in the past? Thanks for opening up this discusion, very thought provoking.  Is your gun for sale?   Smylee

[k gahagan]

Hello Mike, Let me first say I like this piece very much. I think you've done a great job with the architecture and capturing the spirit for this type of arm.The color looks very approprate and blends well with the overall feel of the fowler. If we had to split hairs a simplier trigger may be better and maybe if some simple carving were going to be applied to this type of piece you would expect it to be around the tang instead of the comb. You might consider ageing it more or making the metal more molty looking (if that's even a word) to go with the theme and tarnish the brass a little more on the trigger guard to get a more universally aged piece. I think it's great that you worked this up with your vision of what could have been vs. a copy  and came up with something that is totally believable. Much harder to do. I'm glad we have   Grinslades book which  has been a great source with identifying so many of these types of arms.

[Don Getz]

Mike............just had to go back to the pictures of this piece of _______.     I never cared for that triggerguard, but it is
what it is.   I also would have changed the trigger, get rid of some of the junk on the back side, leaving a  little round lump at the top, the curl on the bottom is OK.   After all of this criticism of this gun, if you decide to throw it in the trash can
just let me know............Don

[KLMoors]

I like it a lot. I think the thin wrist looks real nice.

I agree with the trigger comments, and I also agree with the feeling that it could use something real simple around the tang.

The one area that looks "off" to my eye is at the tail end of the lock. Since it sits so low, it looks too flat between the trigger and that end of the lock panel. Might be the picture, or it might be architecturally perfect, but it catches my ignorant eye.

Thanks for the thread.

[Tom Currie]

As a few other's have  mentioned the lock seems to be tipped off where it should be to me eye.

But just maybe that's a lesson for us that strive to get everything perfect in our minds.

Marching to your own drummer has made your work ( from what I have seen over time ) unique which is something that many of us would like to achieve but might not take the risks or think outside the box enough to do so.

I love seeing non standard work.

[Acer Saccharum]

Mike's gun certainly falls in the category of 'Non-standard work', a term coined in a post higher up.

If we take the 'Isaac Haines' rifle design as counterpoint, everyone is so familiar with it that there is almost a 'standard' to which a gun must be built, colored and engraved. It does not mean the guns aren't beautiful. But popular trends can can lead to stagnation in the contemporary arena.

There are such benefits to the WWWeb, examples might be research of original work, exposure for one's own work, and exposure to others' work. But a benefit can turn to a downside where a FAD takes on a life of its own, a certain school of rifle that EVERYONE starts as soon as one really cool work shows up. Then this fad rifle gets to be boring, overused, and eventually, unappreciated, almost no matter how good it is. There really isn't any cure for this disease. I had gotten the bug many times myself!

Mike's example gun, and Ken Gahagan's Club-Butt Fowlers, are reaching beyond this 'comfort zone' of the contemporary American gun. Hurrah! Fun stuff to see, and inspiring.

[Bob Roller]

My preference for decades has been plain as a fence post rifles. The ones without butt plates get my attention when it is a nicely done job with the end grain. The trigger guard can be any kind of forged iron or even a screen door pull handle which I have seen. On the back of the front cover of Muzzle Blasts is an ad for the CLA show and there is an "iron"mounted gun there that really turns my crank. The maker is listed as Randy Sherman but doesn't say where he's from.
Eisenbeschlagen,Gestern,Heute,Morgen.

Bob Roller

[C Wallingford]

Bob--
Randy is from Embleton, PA (SP)

[Mike Brooks]

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.

Lots of good responses. I'll go through these one at a time or nearly so. This particularstyle of NE gun comes from the area of Mass. , Conn. and RI during probably the last 1/4 of the 18th century. These are, for the most part , very slim and petite guns with long barrels. The buttstock on thiss gun is probably 1 7/8" maybe 2" X around 5" tall. Here's a picture of an original from that era and area to illustrate.  I think I came really close to nailing the stock profile, .....maybe not, but I think so.
 

[Mike Brooks]

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

Thanks for the reply Tom. Yes, there may not be much taper on the lower forestock. Probably less than 1/16" if any. I'm going through a "expose alot of barrel" stage at the moment and that may be playing $#*! with that taper. I'd do some measuring, but this gun found a new home last fall just before deer season....unfortunately it was the gun that I was planing on hunting with....Shot my deer with the neighbor's chinese pump shotgun.   A truly horrifying experience.,

[Mike Brooks]

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!!!

Dane, I really like the work Kentucky rifle that the top builders are putting out these day, incredible work.I'm humbled by it to say the least, and can't compete. That's probably why I've traveled down the path that I have, to build something different with a different look than what everyone else is doing. I guess I started that 30 years ago, went to KY rifles when I had to but generally felt my KY rifle, although not bad, just didn't meet the mark of the big guys. I'm not at all disturbed by that as I really enjoy what I'm doing these days.

[Mike Brooks]

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.

Thanks Don, greatly appreciated.

[Mike Brooks]

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.

Eric, I love your insight when It comes to things like this. I never considered balance when I did the carving on this gun.  I'll tell you how that comb carving got there. I had built this gun with intentions of building for myself to hunt with then selling it.  I like a nice looking gun but don't require a bunch of fancy carving and engraving on  my own guns to enjoy them. So, what I'm really into these days is upper and lower forestock moldings, which this gun has. Was going to stop ther but at the time I had been studying Dutch guns that were being sold in the New England sea ports in the 1730's and 40's. These Dutch guns were the basis for much of the carving we see on NE fowlers of the '70,s and 80's. So , bang, there went the comb carving on the gun.   But you're right, it probably should have had Dutch influence tang carving as well. Never looked out of balance untill you mentioned it, fine observation. I think If I had to do it over again I'd have left the comb carving off for such a dressed down gun as this. But, there it is, on there for ever now!
 This is a concept I discuss with my wife often about my work, you only get to carve/engrave/shape this stuff one time, then you're stuck with it forever.

[Mike Brooks]

Made up American pieces are like American hot rods....Use whatever you got to make it work.....I have several pics of "made up" pieces...No "school", just "made up" guns or fowlers....I would have done something around the tang and not the comb....But thats how Mikes sees the piece....Its a neat gun....Works.....I have always liked what Mike does ...A big influence on what I try and do....

Thanks Jack, you old rascal. Your work has also had some influence on mine as well.