At What Point .....

[Tom Cooper]

So with the advent of the internet as well as the proliferation of products on the market, I am curious at what point is an individual considered a builder versus an assembler of parts ( stocker ).

Is it the assembling of a certain amount of snap tight kits ?

Or it could be the number of rifles created from the blank.

Is it the amount of tools you have bought, or the fact that the local library has a contract to borrow books from your personal library ?

Maybe it is the amount of time and money spent traveling around the country learning from well known and established builders.

Or is it apprenticing to a Grey Beard that has over 40 years experience building common guns for the common man ?

Does one become a builder when you have sold a rifle assembled by your hands to an individual you have never met.

Or maybe builder status is achieved when you sell the concept of a rifle to someone then begin acquiring and assembling the parts ?

Are you considered a builder when you forge a certain amount of parts.

Are you a builder when you case harden your locks, or fire blue your barrels ?

Are you considered a builder when a trader refuses to lower the ridiculous price on a rifle you built hoping you will achieve collector status or just die off ?

Maybe it is when you have figured out that there isn't any obstacle that you cannot overcome while building.

Are you considered a builder when your friends marvel at your creations, or when individuals on a message board sing your praises ?

Or maybe it is achieved when you have gleaned as much useful information as possible and you have an solution for the majority of questions asked ?

Or is it the ability to look at a total mess of a rifle and smile at the creator and tell them it is a noble effort and looks good ?

Or is it that builder status is achieved with a post count on a message board.....

I am curious

[smallpatch]

Tom,

These are good questions.  Although,  it seems like I detect a note of bitterness along with the questions???

Like most other cases,  you're just a hobbyist, until someone else says you're an artist, or you die.

I don't think anyone can give a quantitative answer, but again, that title is usually given you by someone else, not yourself.

[Dave B]

Holly cow you have puzzled this one over.
The difference I think is if you build more than one and want to build more. I think technically you need to say gun stocker when it comes to nitpicking. Some build the barrel the lock and all bits. The majority of us use components purchased which makes us more of stocker vs the Gun Maker. Thats how I view it.

[don getz]

Even John Bivins considered himself a "gunstocker", but can anyone doubt that he was a great gunbuilder?  While I consider the Chambers kits the best you can buy, by the time you have it put together, could you not consider yourself
a "gunbuilder".  If you don't think this is correct, just hand that kit to a guy whose only experience is model airplane building and see what he comes up with.  When you buy a kit like Jim's, it's what you do with it from that point forward
that turns it into a gun, or a great gun.  I have a gun built by Bob Harn that was done from one of Jim's early lancaster
stocks.  Actually, it was a "second" stock that Bob Lepley ran.  The ramrod hole came out the bottom of the stock just
in front of the trigger guard extension, and Jim offered to sell it to me at a lower price.  I eventually talked Bob into building the gun for me.  It is now sought after by some of the good collectors, a fabulous gun.  I will have it on my
table at the CLA................Don

[Tom Cooper]

Although,  it seems like I detect a note of bitterness along with the questions???

Not at all.

I have given this alot of thought as I am in a transition and am interested in the thoughts of others.

In this day and age of instant gratification where you can purchase off the shelf goodies that mimic handcrafted articles where do you draw the line between builder and assembler ? I do identify with many of the questions I posted above but not nearly as many as some other folks.

I do have many books related to this craft and have read many of the dissertations by famous builders that pioneered the revival of this artform as it pertains to this topic, at this point it would seem that the rules governing art and craftsmanship are changing and evolving as we continue this endeavor.

Most will have an opinion concerning this topic but many will not get involved for one reason or another.

While I consider the Chambers kits the best you can buy, by the time you have it put together, could you not consider yourself
a "gunbuilder". 

That is the purpose of the questions posed in this post.
Can the builder that never worries about a less than perfect lock placement or the correctness of architecture be classified the same as the one that has to do all of the layout and inlets on a precarve, or the individual working from the blank.

you're just a hobbyist, until someone else says you're an artist, or you die.

but again, that title is usually given you by someone else, not yourself.

I agree...

[northmn]

I haven't seen this arguement since I was involved in bowbuilding where some did not consider one a bowbuilder unless he practically chewed out a bow with a split rock and his teeth.   One of the problems is that too many people have watched tapes like "The Gunsmith of Williamsburg" and think that that is the only way to truly build a rifle.  By the "Golden Age" there are records of the purchase of imported locks and I believe barrel blanks.  Also I read somewhere that Dickert built locks for other gunsmiths.  So if purchasing a lock and barrel makes me a stocker I am a stocker.  I take pride in the fact that I can take a suitable plank and make a gun from it.  I am finishing one I cut out of a tree.  Am I to look down on a person that buys a precarved and makes a nice rifle with fabulous carving and engraving?  I just spent more time than I should have making thimbles for that project, one an entry thimble and one a thimble with an attachment for a detachable sling.  So am I a thimble maker but not a gun builder?  I am thinking about making a triggerguard for the gun because it kind of fits the theme, but really it makes more sense to use one I have laying around. 
I guess my point is that these arguments come up because someone looks down on someone else for doing something their way without regard to what that person wants to accomplish or out of jealousy.  I have made everything for a rifle but the barrel.  Mainly because I chose not make a barrel.  I can build a fairly nice plain brass mounted longrifle but cannot match the engraving and carving of some of those I have seen made from kits.  Many folks also just do not have the time to start from scratch as well as the fact that it would be a waste of their talents.  I have said that about both Acer and Jerry before.  Their level of craftsmanship is such that economically their time is wasted doing the very basics.  If they do so because they enjoy it that is fine.  Others have families they want to spend time with as well as jobs that do not permit any free time (I have been there).
I do not cut a stock and make components like thimbles, breech plugs and trigger guards because I think that makes me somehow a better gunsmith than a kit builder.  I do so because the life style I chose does not permit the income to purchase all those parts.  By scrimping here and there I can make ML's and continue with my hobby, especially if I sell one now and then.  This whole thing is very personal and if you are satisfied with what you do don't worry about whether someone wants to nitpick as to how you are doing it.  We all have certain talents and we have the most enjoyment when we use those talents to their more complete fulfilment.  Got longwinded again, sorry.

DP

[smallpatch]

Nicely said, David

[Ephraim]

I consider myself none of those things I just build guns some times I make the parts some times I buy them . I have just enjoyed building all these 40 some odd years. And I get joy from the looks people give me when they shoot center with one. But a gun builder? I just might be in some folk's eyes. But in my eyes I just do what I love ant that is sturdy and build guns.
Ephraim

[J.D.]

I would think that a builder would have the ability to make most of the component parts, whether he chooses to make his own or use ready made parts.

IMHO, another determinant would be  the makers use of line and form to achieve good architecture and the basic knowledge of how architecture is influenced by the various schools.

IMHO, in a nutshell, the bottom line is artistry.

[don getz]

If one can take this pile of stuff....barrel, lock, stock, etc., and turn it into a shootable gun, is he not a gun "builder"?  If
I had a local building supply house deliver all the 2x4's, plywood, shingles, siding and all the other parts needed to make a house, and I put this whole thing together, does this not make me a house "builder"   If you can assemble all of the
parts to make a gun, you can at that time just finish it.  If you are perhaps a little more talented you can carve it, and
possibly engrave it, but as far as I am concerned, you are still a gun "builder", no matter how plain or fancy you choose
to make it.  Also, when you finish a gun from a kit, perhaps engrave and relief carve it, it now becomes a personal item, one that you created.....who is to know how that wood was removed.  Since many of us are familiar with the many kits
available out there, can we tell in looking at a gun if it was made from a kit, or did this guy chew it out of a blank of wood,
using a hatchet, chisel, rasps, whatever.  In looking at that finished piece, does it really matter.  Someone is going to say
"who built that?".   Even the uninformed knows you are a builder.....Don

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Its interesting, the only terms I have seen in old American documents are Gunsmith and Gunstocker at least until the industrial revolution took over.  Seems like splitting hairs.  I think I would have to use the term Gunsmith for someone who can and has built a gun from a skelp of iron or bar of steel  and made all the parts.  beyond that does it make a difference??
Well said Don!

[Tom Cooper]

Looking at the tone of the replies thus far I must admit that this was not intended as an argumentative subject, even though it may be construed that way.

[lew wetzel]

you are what you think you are.and who gives a rats @#$ what others think.do what you enjoy doing and please yourself.if you take a pile of parts and assemble them or make some yourself and it fires when your done and nobody got hurt.well,what does that make you???

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Hey Tom, I am not seeing any argument, just a topic that has some emotion and history associated for some folks.  Its a valid question, but as I said I am not sure what difference it makes.  What led you to ask the question?  That may help get more useful answers.   

[bob in the woods]

When I cut away all the wood on a blank that does not look like a rifle...I'm a builder
Until pre-carves come with self installing parts..I'm a builder
Whether we can agree that what I have built is a longrifle..that is the real question!!!!

[Dphariss]

Practically everyone in England had lock filers and barrel makers that supplied  parts, Manton and others had gunstockers that made guns from parts from several suppliers if I understand the English gun industry properly. So in buying parts today we are little different. Most American rifles by the Revolution had barrels and locks that arrived either ready made or semi-finished. From the looks of parts I see in RCA etc there were obviously suppliers of buttplates and TGs as well, some apparently engraved.
The American gunsmith on or near the frontier was more of an "all in one" than many of the people is more civilized areas of the US and certainly in Europe and England.
Most of us are gunstockers. But many can make or heavily modify more parts than they buy. I detest most store bought rod pipes for example and I like making single triggers.
This said we are not all that different than the people whose work we emulate in regard to making or buying parts. They bought a lot of parts as well and may have even had access to partly shaped stock blanks in some instances.

Dan

[northmn]

Actually when you look at it a European gun was likely more "assembled"  than what we do as they had different craftsmen doing different jobs on the same gun.  We do all the work ourselves and do not make a barrel give it to the stocker to put in the gun and then have the stocker pass it on the engraver and carver. etc.  I have seen some comments that we also should use the tools of the early tradesmen to reach some sort of elite builder status.  Early craftsmen made a lot of tools that we would have to make to make their work easier such as a variety of planes and saws.  Many had this person called an apprentice as their power source for some of their equipment.  At certain stages the apprentices also likely did some of the basic work.  In later years some of the gunshops were really a sort of factory also.  I have been called a lot of things over the years such that being called a stocker, assembler, builder or whatever is actually one of the better titles.

DP 

[Tom Cooper]

There was a bit less interest in this post than I had hoped for but such is life.

The intent was not to demean or belittle another, I was curious as to the thoughts of others. This discussion has come up before in different circles even on the old ALR board on the past, and the general consensus was different then than it is now. There was a time on this board when you could post a picture of a rifle and get honest critique whereas lately things seem to be watered down, maybe our skin is thinning.

I am secure in my knowledge and skill of building/smithing/assembling, I may not get it architecturally right each time and there are some things that glare out at me from time to time but I am happy with the results of my efforts as well as the tutoring I have received and the fact that with time and effort I will turn out better work. I have had the opportunity to handle a few originals, as well as some work from contemporary builders and I must admit that I am holding my own and am proud of that fact. The trick now is to keep the interest up as the newness wears off.

While at a community gathering recently there was a "collector" interested in the displays, I had a few as well as another gent. The guy asks what the other guy wanted for his work and a price was quoted he then turns to me and asked what I wanted to do the same project, I told him to double the cost then we'll see about the pretties. He about came unglued and wanted to know what the difference was, all I could say ( without getting up out of my chair )  was that I had a family to feed and the other guy didn't.
At the end of the day the other guy and myself were discussing the reaction of the perspective buyer and came to the same conclusion, the difference in the work between the other guy and myself was time, the parts were the same as well as the style/school but the average passerby has no clue about the amount of work involved to hand polish the lock versus just knock the casting lines off, or to work a casting down so that everything looks just right versus good enough, to take the time to layout the pins so that they are plumb side to side and fore an aft, to struggle with the inlets so that there are no gaps, to case harden the lock and parts and temper them back etc., also there is the removal of the wood, getting enough off and then taking a it a bit more, making the flat areas flat and the round areas round and so on.

There was a post recently wherein another poster took offence to what I considered sage wisdom, the remark was in reference to the ability of the individual to turn out a historically correct reproduction. I do not want to pick on anybody or offend but the fact is ( in my opinion ) the dissenter was correct in his observation, that we must recognize our limits and strive to eliminate them. I would not even attempt such a project until I have been at this for several more years at least, as I would be afraid of not doing the project justice. Of course that post started after this one but kinda plays in on the overall theme.

By the way have a great day.

[jerrywh]

In my opinion it doesn't matter if anybody else considers you a gun maker ,a gun stocker ,a parts caster or whatever else.  I think most people do this for self satisfaction today. The truth of it is very few guns were ever built completely by one person and I mean ever.  In the first place it's not  economically advantageous.
  Most guns that were built completely by one person were done because the parts were unavailable or the gunsmith just wanted to see if he could do it.
 There are a lot[ hundreds]  of guys today that can make every part of any gun. That has always been true. it seems a great task for the average person. 
       Nicholas Noel Boutet was the gun maker to Napoleon the first and is considered by many to be the best gun maker of all times, Guess what? He referred to himself as a artist and not a gun maker. He had about a thousand men or more working for him and the Armory put out a thousand muskets a day for some time.
  I doubt if he ever made a whole gun by himself but he probably could have. Joseph Manton had 250 men working for him and the same is probably true of him.
 American gun makers did this for a living. 
     A great gunstocker is as much to be desired as a total gun maker. Most people who do everything are not the best at everything. The more you learn the more fun it is.  That's all.  I don't think anybody will achieve unexcelled levels in the gun makers field. Anybody who thinks he is the best gun maker in the world just don't know all the other good ones. Same goes for almost any art or craft. There's always some old man in a garage some place that's better than you that nobody heard much about. 
     If a person is seeking admiration , he only has to do one thing extremely well and he will succeed.
 D Phariss is correct when he says " we are not all that different than the ones we emulate"

[famouseagle]

Excellent post, Jerry.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Well said Jerry!

[Mike Brooks]

I've considered my self a gun stocker for the past 28 years. But, I don't take my self too seriously as I could just as easily be called something else......

[Scott Brush]

But, I don't take my self too seriously as I could just as easily be called something else......

Good one Mike.     And good advise for all of us.

My pap use to say "don't take life too seriously, it comes to an end".

Scott

[Clint]

Call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner

[jerrywh]

 Well this is a ten year old topic I see.  You don't have to operate a saw mill or grow trees to be called a house builder. The same goes for gun building in my opinion.  Even the so called " old Masters" usually bought all the assembled parts they could find or import.  Sometime look up the biography of Jacob Dickert. Most of them bought barrels from a barrel mill and bought imported locks from Germany or England.
  To be called a gun smith is a different story.