Author Topic: Let's do another (Read 23726 times)

Mike Brooks · « **on:** July 03, 2012, 03:43:49 AM »

I don' tknow where this will go, definately not a main stream piece for most, but somewhat common for my work, I think. I rarel ever get a call requesting a Beck, Dickert, etc. but I get calls all the time stating "make me an early gun." What's early? I guess 1750's up till about 1770, so that is my attempt here. No particularplace, just trying to fit a time. I did use New York styled carving on it...maybe if I had to do it over I would have invented something less identifiable as to a region. My inspiration for the archetecture comes from a Kettenburg gun that was sown here a while ago, sharp drop at the breech. It's radical, but just quirky enough to suit me.
To the particulars, which are mostly unimportant but we'll review them anyway. Bob Hoyt monster swamped barrel, .69 rifled, 1 1/14" at the breech. Davis Dutchy lock, Davis triggers, Goehring trigger guard and a cast buttplate of my design. The stock is stump sugar maple, so !@*%&@ hard you don't know which will give first, your chisle or the wood.

Ben I. Voss · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2012, 04:03:56 AM »

Charming! I really like the offbeat early styling. The sharp drop at the breech and the way the lock panels are angled really gives the piece a nice forward motion. The aging, coloring, shading of the wood shows off the carving nicely (nice warm colors, too.) Love the engraved characters on the side-plate! Not that I'm any kind of expert, but it looks really cool to my eyes.

wattlebuster · « **Reply #2 on:** July 03, 2012, 04:33:23 AM »

Mike I love this gun. Im no expert nor do I claim to be but I know what I like. I like flat wide buttplate/stocks an I am a aged gun fan so you did very well with both. Im a plain gun fan but ya put just enough carving and engraving on it to make it intresting without going overboard. Only thing wrong with it is its not mine an hereby a &$!* shame

Ed Wenger · « **Reply #3 on:** July 03, 2012, 04:36:16 AM »

Mike,

First of all, thanks for this, and the other thread on the fowler. It's an excellent learning experience. You have a building style that is unique, and fills a niche nicely.

The only thing that caught my eye is the way the side plate sits a little high in relation to the panel. I don't know nothin from nothin, but with my simple mind, I might have curved the tail down some to be a little more symmetrical. I don't even know if that's "proper", or "correct", but it might be a little more pleasing to my eye. I'm curious to learn about that.

I can tell you this, there's tons I like about the piece. First off, it speaks "Early" gun, something I would associate with the F&I war period. I like the flat area under the panels. Often, you see guns with a big breech have a "fish belly" through that area. I'm thinking the sharp drop off helps with that, but it looks great. Over all, to me the architecture is spot on, and well balanced with the carving and engraving. I also like the slim (thickness) patch box. I really like this rifle, and am looking forward to your, and others input. Again, thanks for posting.

Ed

nosrettap1958 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2012, 04:39:51 AM »

I don't like the signature on top of the barrel, looks rushed and doesn't have that natural flow you would expect. Other than that I really like this rifle especially that long, slim wrist you gave it.

rich pierce · « **Reply #5 on:** July 03, 2012, 05:28:35 AM »

I like the buttstock architecture, cheekpiece a LOT, carving a LOT. The guard seems to be unbalanced with a long bow and short rail. That would not be unusual on an early rifle but not one I'd choose. I'd like to see the lower buttstock molding taper some, wider from the toeline at the rear abd closer as it approaches the guard. The inset front sight is a nice touch.

Don Getz · « **Reply #6 on:** July 03, 2012, 05:46:11 AM »

Mike.........love the gun. I like the fact that it isn't a copy of anything, looks early. You have a great imagination, carving
looks great for an early piece. Ed brought up the side plate, I agree that it could have had a droop at the tail, but that
isn't enough to turn me off. Kind of looks like something I would have done. Also like the finish..........Don

Don Tripp · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:05:27 AM »

I love this style of rifle. I like that it was inspired by the work of another contemporary builder. I've seen far more contemporary rifles than originals and have been influenced by them just as 18th century builders were influenced by the work of other Gunsmiths that they were exposed to. This rifle fires my imagination and makes me think of things that I'd like to include on a future project. Very inspirational Mike. Thanks for the pictures.

rsells · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2012, 10:39:41 AM »

Mike,
I really like this rifle. The carving looks great, relatively simple in design, flows with the rifle, and at a level that I would think would be used by smiths in earlier times. Also, your work on this rifle has caused me think about how I would like to make effective changes to my plans on an early rifle I now have to the point of doing the carving. Not too much, but enough to really enhance the overall look of the rifle. Thanks for sharing your work with us.
Roger Sells

Robert Wolfe · « **Reply #9 on:** July 03, 2012, 04:23:09 PM »

The side plate location doesn't bother me. I've seen originals that have the site plate all over the place; apparently placed with little care for the contemporary eye. But, the lock nail slots scream modern to me..

A very charming gun I'd be proud to own.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #10 on:** July 03, 2012, 05:39:17 PM »

I knew that sideplate would shake folks up. I usually cut my sideplates out of sheet brass and design them to fit the lock panel in the "normal" manner. This one is a casting from Davis, I believe they call it their type "D". I placed it on the panel and studied on it. I think it layed their over night and on coming out the next morning I liked the quirkiness of the way the tail was high, definitely not designed for this gun. So I approached it as a recycled piece from an old french trade gun used on a new build.
OK, I have some questions. You'll notice from the side the cheek piece looks to be quite tall, but from the bottom view it really isn't. I achieved this by making the buttstock pretty "pregnant", sloping the wood up gradually to the cheek piece. This is something that has always bothered me about our contemporary work, we just gotta have straight lines. But, on all the originals I have seen this tall cheek piece archetecture is an illusion. So, I finally overcame this straight line thing and my guns look more like the old guns. Consensus?
Patch box position. Yea or nay?
Rich Pierces coment about the buttstock moldings is a great observation and is something I put alot of thought into on this gun. My normal tendancy is to use a tapered molding, but I thought this skinny one might give a better feeling for an earlier gun.

rich pierce · « **Reply #11 on:** July 03, 2012, 06:33:32 PM »

Patchbox position is great. I've seen for some time now that a lot of contemporary makers have the cheekpiece jutting out quite a bit more than most originals. I like the pregnant look of early Berks County rifles and this one has a similar feel. Bravo again on using the carving style found on what Grinslade has called British-styled fowlers but might easily have been called NY (city and Long Island) fowling pieces.

Keb · « **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:08:44 PM »

Dang!!! What a good looking gun. I love the color & finish on this thing. I also like the style. I don't care for the barrel engraving though. In my opinion, it shouldn't be so crisp compared to the rest of the aging of the gun. I am also wondering what that circle is to the rear of the entry pipe. Is that a repair? Great gun by anyone's standards.

Tom Currie · « **Reply #13 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:10:51 AM »

Mike, What jumps out at me is the top edge of the lock panel and side plate panel are not lining up with the edge of the top oblique flat and side of the barrel, as I am a customer to seeing them. I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO only that it looks sort of broken to me, or the flow of the lines looks broken to me. The extreme drop obviously makes this more difficult. If you wanted to match them up, I suspect you would have. If any one's interested look at EK's 1750 rifle for comparison.

I love the tang and entry pipe carving, antique finish and just about everything else.

JDK · « **Reply #14 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:27:39 AM »

I like the sideplate position but the ears on the fox are too big and he and the dog should be running toward the muzzle, not the butt. Really, I would expect more from No. 299.

I really do like this gun....but I really like early guns. The abruptness of the tang bend is not appealing to me but I think it's just that we aren't used to seeing such a thing.

I am also curious about that round circle on the off side lower fore end.

Nice work, as usual. Enjoy, J.D.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #15 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:31:10 AM »

Quote from: Keb on July 03, 2012, 11:08:44 PM

Dang!!! What a good looking gun. I love the color & finish on this thing. I also like the style. I don't care for the barrel engraving though. In my opinion, it shouldn't be so crisp compared to the rest of the aging of the gun. I am also wondering what that circle is to the rear of the entry pipe. Is that a repair? Great gun by anyone's standards.

Ah, very sharp eyes.

I was going to mention it tomorrow if nobody caught it. It was a big old hairy knot the more I worked the forstock down the hairier it got. So, it got a plug.....

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #16 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:35:26 AM »

Quote from: Tom Currie on July 04, 2012, 02:10:51 AM

Mike, What jumps out at me is the top edge of the lock panel and side plate panel are not lining up with the edge of the top oblique flat and side of the barrel, as I am a customer to seeing them. I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO only that it looks sort of broken to me, or the flow of the lines looks broken to me. The extreme drop obviously makes this more difficult. If you wanted to match them up, I suspect you would have. If any one's interested look at EK's 1750 rifle for comparison.

I love the tang and entry pipe carving, antique finish and just about everything else.

I have watched you guys ruminate on this subject for years on this board. I guess it is something I have never paid alot of attention to. If you imagine I moved that lock panel line up to the oblique flat corner I would have ended up with huge lock panels.....or wouldn't I? Seems like I would have..... I'll take a look at EK's gun.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #17 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:45:00 AM »

Quote from: JDK on July 04, 2012, 02:27:39 AM

I like the sideplate position but the ears on the fox are too big and he and the dog should be running toward the muzzle, not the butt. Really, I would expect more from No. 299.

I really do like this gun....but I really like early guns. The abruptness of the tang bend is not appealing to me but I think it's just that we aren't used to seeing such a thing.

I am also curious about that round circle on the off side lower fore end.

Nice work, as usual. Enjoy, J.D.

Actually, foxes had much longer ears in the 18th century. Very few people realize this today...

Don Getz · « **Reply #18 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:51:56 AM »

Tom.......who's gunbuilding book were you reading about where those lock panels were supposed to be even with the
oblique flats of the barrel? Due to the fact that Mike made it with a radical drop right behind the breech end of the
barrel does create some different or creative problems architecturally, and, I think he pulled it off quite well......Don

bob in the woods · « **Reply #19 on:** July 04, 2012, 03:01:57 AM »

I love this gun ! Every part of it. Each time I look, I find something else that draws my attention.
Plug, sideplate, signature, etc etc, ...all familiar from original pieces. Your guns look like they have a story behind them . Thanks for posting.

Tom Currie · « **Reply #20 on:** July 04, 2012, 03:02:55 AM »

Don, It's just not what I'm used to seeing and an observation. It's what stuck out to me. I'm not finding fault, just learning as I go.....

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2012, 03:03:17 AM »

I'm really getting a kick out of the Old Duffer supporting my gun work.....

Must be mellowing out.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #22 on:** July 04, 2012, 03:05:13 AM »

Quote from: bob in the woods on July 04, 2012, 03:01:57 AM

I love this gun ! Every part of it. Each time I look, I find something else that draws my attention.
Plug, sideplate, signature, etc etc, ...all familiar from original pieces. Your guns look like they have a story behind them . Thanks for posting.

Thanks for the compliments Robert in the forest. Greatly appreciated.

JDK · « **Reply #23 on:** July 04, 2012, 03:10:40 AM »

Now, I know you've said you don't like to talk about time you've invested on a build....but I'm bettin' you have considerably more than 18 to 20 hours invested on this one.

The more I look the more I see. Very nicely done.

Enjoy, J.D.

Tom Currie · « **Reply #24 on:** July 04, 2012, 03:19:48 AM »

Mike ( and Don ), Let me clarify my thoughts a bit. I am not of the thought that things have to match up exactly to look right, so I'm not buying into someone's book that suggests this. Maybe it's the fact that the top lock panel edge comes in as low as it does to the barrel that catches my eye. And yes I understand that the lock panel would be huge if it came in higher. I am also not saying someone else did it "right". Only identified EK's rifle as a comparison, a rifle I like it a lot as I'm sure Mike does also.

I really like Mike's gun.

News:

Author Topic: Let's do another (Read 23726 times)

nosrettap1958

Don Tripp