Critique my TVM Grand

[Number19]

This is a .45 caliber Contemporary American longrifle, the standout feature being the tang mounted aperture sight. I decided to go this route because I wanted to be competitive in my gun club's monthly shoot and my 64 year old eyes require this advantage. I also have the option of removing this sight, placing a std sight on the barrel and then seeing if I can find a placement I can use. The second architectural feature to be noticed is the premium black walnut stock carved from a blank that I provided. Finally I went with iron furniture because I like the look and I thought it would match well with the black walnut. The rifle weighs in at an even 9 pounds and was made by Matt's son, Richard. I had some idea going in as to what I wanted, but without mentioning what these were, your critique should be informative as to how close I came. I think Richard did a superb job of providing what I requested, now what do you think?

[David Rase]

Number 19,
I do not think it is right, or ethical to ask the forum to critique a rifle for you that someone else built.  If this was your work and you ask for a critique in order to solicit opinions on where forum members feel you could make improvements on you next build, than a critique would be appropriate.  To ask the forum to give their opinion on a rifle you ordered to see if the builder met you expectations is only asking for trouble.
David 

[rich pierce]

+1, I think the buyer is the critic.  If you're happy with it, then they did their job very well.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I agree to some extent with Dave's comment above but I will offer some comments regardless.  I like it.  It is obviously the product of builders who are knowledgeable and skilled.  The architecture is nice and it should be a comfortable shooter.  It is not a gun that I can get excited about like Acer's recently posted Lehigh rifle but it is seems well made, is attractive, and I am sure it is a good deal for the money.  My only criticisms pertain to details.  I don't like the way the ramrod hangs below the muzzle.  I like it snugged up tight against the muzzlecap.  That probably results from the web of wood between the barrel channel and ramrod groove being too thick for my taste.  It makes the forestock look bulky.  That seems to be the case with all of the TVM guns that I've seen posted on this and other forums.  Additionally, it needs a forestock molding along the ramrod groove rather than just the incised line.  That would help give the forestock a more slimmed appearance.  I wish the lock panels were narrower, particularly the portion around the front of the lock.   The carving looks pretty well done as far as I can see but I do not like the design around the barrel tang.  I am not really sure what it represents.  The peep sight is very cool and well done.  The patchbox and sideplate desperately need engraving.  The buttplate and triggerguard are castings that are marketed as "early Virginia" so I suspect the gun is supposed to represent a Virginia-made gun.  To that end, I cannot comment because I really don't know what that means.  Anyway, nice gun and thanks for sharing the photos.

dave

[Collector]

It may not matter, in the least, but if you can, add a toe plate.  Normally, if built without a toe plate, the bottom portion of the butt plate, extends a tad past the wood.  Keeps the toe from chipping out or splitting. 

Obviously, it's meant as a target shooting piece, either off of a bench/(?) and is built to your specifications.  That being said, if it's to spec. and you're happy with the results, then that's all that matters.

What of the other details, man, details!  Barrel by whom? Lock? Triggers?

It's designed to put round holes in things, so tell us, in the Shooting Forum, how it shoots? Powder?, Patch?, Size ball?

Oh, it could use some... ahhh, rust.  But that's just me.

I'm not a walnut guy, but that is a very nice looking piece of walnut you selected.  Yeah, another detail... 

Good luck with it!


 

[Number19]

Perhaps "critique" is the wrong choice of word, perhaps I should have used "comment"; or perhaps I posted in the wrong sub-topic; perhaps it belongs in Over the Back Fence; or perhaps this forum prefers no discussion of "purchased" rifles. If this is the case, I offer my apologies with the suggestion that this be made more clear in Rules and Policies.

I posted this as a companion thread to the, now locked, thread TVM Grand Rifles and as a specific example which could be objectively discussed.

In light of all the comment that has ever been made on the web between the barrel and the ramrod, I was particularly interested in this. From what I've read, the really slimmed, delicate forestocks are an architectural feature of the Golden Age gun. Early guns tended to be a little more bulky. I believe I'm correct in saying that typically this web should be 1/8" to 1/4" in thickness. I would have to measure other guns for comparison, but I measured across the barrel flats at the middle thimble and measured across the same thimble flats and then measured from the top of the barrel flat to the bottom of the thimble flat. With these measurements, at the narrowest point on the swamped barrel, I calculated the web thickness as being 5/16". So there may be some justification to this comment.

Molding along the ramrod groove in addition to the incised line? This is the kind of suggestion I was looking to get. When I ordered my rifle 15 months ago, this had not been brought to my attention, but for someone reading this thread, it is something to keep in mind.

I measured the distance between the lock panels at 1.55". For an early rifle, I don't know what is typical, I'll have to research this, but again, we have a solid point to consider and something to look at when researching the architecture of antiques.

Engraving? I think this is pretty much personal preference. Early rifles tended to have less engraving. Haga did not engrave his rifles. Also, when iron furniture was used, engraving was even less common. I've read comments that when choosing iron, don't engrave. But I do agree, it looks a little "naked" and I asked Richard about this. I can remove these from the rifle and send to him for engraving, if I decide this is what I want. I'm open to convincing.

You almost had it right. What I was going for was a generic early rifle from the Lower Valley, by a master gunsmith apprenticed in the York or Lancaster schools, or perhaps a continental gunsmith who settled in Virginia rather than Pennsylvania. My understanding is that a blending of the Germanic and English architectures in the Berkeley County or Winchester areas was not uncommon. My question is, and what I haven't seen discussed, is the form this "blending" took. For those wanting to build, or purchase, a generic rifle, this topic could use more discussion.

The carving around the tang is Richard's design. I think it sorta goes with the aperture sight, but otherwise, does not represent anything in particular.

When I picked up my rifle I failed to notice the lack of a toe piece, so I didn't question Richard on this. I had originally requested one and I don't know if this is simply an oversight or a conscience decision. From a practical point of view, I wanted one for the very reason cited. Just this morning I was thinking about asking if one could be added.

Barrel: 42" Rice, Golden Age/York series, B weight.
Lock: Chambers Delux Siler
Trigger: Large Davis Double Set

This is my first BP. My powder will be in tomorrow, Monday. I still have to buy balls, patches, flints ( I have one which should be good to get started), and if you noticed, I still have to buy the aperture to go in the sight. But I will be posting on the results when I get to the shooting.

Thanks,
George

[hanshi]

I'll go ahead and answer your request.  First, it's an extremely nice, good looking and very well built rifle.  I'd be overjoyed to own it as would others on this site.  It's a step up from the usual field grade guns many of us enjoy.

However, I would hesitate using the moniker "Grand" simply because the carving, though expertly done, is rather sparse and the lack of engraving still lends a perception of "glorified field grade".  There's nothing wrong with this as a truly embellished gun would be much more costly and unnecessary for the woods.  the wood is rather plain and this would require, IMHO, much more custom work to make it truly striking.  With fine wood for the stock, the amount of carving/engraving on this fine rifle might suffice bit it begs for more.

Congratulations on a very fine rifle that will make a fine heirloom but probably not a  super heirloom.

[smart dog]

Hi George,
Rest assured that I think you were very well served by the folks at TVM.  You have a nice gun.  My quibble is with a few details and things that are not consistent with my personal preferences.  With respect to the web thickness, I think you are misinformed if you think a thick web was typical of early guns.  Perhaps some were made that way but look at 2 of the earliest documented guns, the Schreit rifle and the Edward Marshall gun.  On both guns the ramrod is tucked tight against the muzzlecap.  A web of 5/16" is very thick.  I typically build my guns with webs no thicker than 3/16" and often as little as 1/8".   With respect to engraving, iron and mild steel engrave wonderfully.  In fact, I much prefer engraving steel than brass because making cuts in the metal is very consistent and predictable, unlike much brass (especially cast).  Perhaps many guns mounted with forged iron parts were made by smiths who did not know how to engrave.  With respect to your iron mounts, I suspect they are copies of originals that were cast in brass.  Real forged iron mounts look a bit different than the cast steel parts.  Again, you have a nice gun and I am sure you will enjoy it.


dave
   

[T*O*F]

The rifle.........was made by Matt's son, Richard.

I seem to recall that Richard is Toni's son, not Matt's but he's a good kid.  Anyway, as a recent purchaser, perhaps you can provide some insight for us.  Was your gun shipped from Natchez or Corinth?  I wonder if they are turning the reins of TVM over to Richard.  I heard that Toni had taken a job with Jackson Museum and that they had moved to Natchez.

[Number19]

Thanks for the replies. This forum is, in my opinion, intended as a place to discuss contemporary longrifles and their builders. TVM occupies an important position in the industry and their rifles warrant discussion. I did not post to justify my purchase, but rather to offer an example of their work which is a step above their base offering. Whether my rifle deserves the moniker of Grand is neither here nor there, but it does offer the opportunity for the posting of another example taken to the next level.

Dave is correct, in that any rifle purchased with iron furniture, if not custom built from scratch, will be assembled from prefabricated parts and these parts will likely be copies of original brass mounts. So perhaps it's OK to engrave, particularly since my gun is not HC to begin with.

I checked my Shumway's, and the "J" dimension across the lock panels is on the narrow side at 1.55", so I'm thinking that when reference is made that the panels could be narrower, I think what is meant is that a closer dimension all around, to the lock and side plates, could be held.

I think Dave has hit the nail on the head in that the two distinguishing traits of the Corinth School is the design at the muzzle cap and the shaping of the side panels. I have a question. How many "schools" in the longrifle trade have been recognized in the past 200 years?

Again, this thread is intended to show newbies what can be expected with the TVM or Corinth School longrifle and what might be done to improve upon its appearance. Matt and Richard will do their best to build the rifle you want, but you must know what that is and instruct them correctly.

I didn't know that Richard was "Toni's" son, just "their" son. My rifle was made in Natchez and I drove over from the Houston area to pick it up. A pleasant 7 hour drive. And yes Toni took a job there and that was the reason for their relocation, but I didn't know the particulars that she was working with the Jackson Museum. Matt seems too young to hand over the business, unless he has something else lined up. My impression is that it's now a family business. They also have an apprentice/helper, Rod, and Matt's sister, Melanie, has taken over Toni's previous work.

George

 

[hanshi]

I suppose I should also mention I have 5 TVM long guns and that alone ought to tell you how I feel about their work.

[Number19]

I suppose I should also mention I have 5 TVM long guns and that alone ought to tell you how I feel about their work.

You, Roundball, and several others, I've been following for about a year and a half, now. Good input. I've got to sight this rifle in, find the right loads, upkeep and everything else. So I'll be on the forums more than ever. Thanks.

[tallbear]

George
I'm not sure what your after but you have clearly stated what you have.You have a Contempoary Longrifle made in the Corinth School of Gunmakeing.For a rifle to fit into one of the Historical Schools of gunmaking there are a great many things that come into play.There is a lot more to it ,than matching up random dimensions and hardware as you seem to want to do.If this is what you were looking for when you ordered then you got what you ordered.If you were looking to have a representation of a particular Historical School then TVM is not the place to go as that is not what they do no matter what information you give them.They build Corinth School rifles.

Mitch

[Number19]

Yes, I chose my words very deliberately precisely because I was posting on this forum - and for those who frequent this forum. I wanted a rifle which fit my requirements but recognized that such a rifle would not fit into a "Historical School". Still, within certain constraints, I wanted a rifle which was "close" to historical. There are many antiques which do not fit any recognized school; these are sometimes referred to as historically generic. It isn't a slight to refer to modern interpretations of these antiques as the Corinth School. In fact, I rather like it. It places Jack Garner and Matt Avance in a rather unique position in the trade.

If you are looking for a "period correct" rifle, only, then the Corinth School is an option to consider; but as Mitch said, if you are wanting a faithful reproduction of a recognized school, look elsewhere.

[Mike Brooks]

Do you really want an honest critique of this rifle? I will, but you probably won't like it.  For now I'll just say it's a standard TVM product and let it go at that.
 I gotta comment on your drawings  and dimension specifics  you sent the builder. If somebody sent me specifics such as these I'd tell them to find another builder.
Choose an experienced builder and let the builder build the gun, he'll know more about it than you will.

[Don Tripp]

Nice wood! I love walnut. I like those castings too. They are from MLBS aren't they? I'm planning on using them on a future project.

[JDK]

I wanted a rifle which fit my requirements but recognized that such a rifle would not fit into a "Historical School".

This statement just doesn't make sense.  How can your requirements be so different from everybody else's that you just couldn't find a rifle that fit your needs and fit a "Historical School"?  Sounds to me like you are making excuses.  There are many builders who could meet your needs and stay within a time frame or school, though using steel hardware kind of narrows it down....but then that is a choice, so you choose not to be historic.

Besides, school, schmool, a rifle doesn't have to fit a certain school to be representative of the period but it must be built to emulate period guns without any glaring discrepancies.

Enjoy, J.D.

[axelp]

so how does it shoot?

K

[aflo]

I'm no expert in any of this but I think it is a beautiful rifle and would love to own it. The coloring and details hit me as very nice.
There is one question about the architecture that I have. I see a lot more of the barrel near the breach and far less near the muzzle. The exposed part of the side flat is purposefully tapered on the gun (and on the drawing). I have heard of builders doing this in the opposite direction but was curious about your choice here. This is not a criticism, just a question.
On providing detailed expectations to a builder, I see nothing wrong with that. I think competent  professionals understand completely. Nothing wrong with giving them total flexibility too, if you like their stuff.

[Jim Kibler]

To be honest, in my view there are a quite a number of issues with this rifle.  This of course comes from the standpoint of comparing it against standards set by some of the best guns, past or present.  Guns from TVM certainly fall into a different category.  Nothing wrong with that.  Better costs.  And let me say, these statements don't necessarily have a great deal to do with the issue of historical correctness that has been brought up previously.  With this said, it seems that historical correctness and aesthetic appeal generally scale together though, at least in my view.

Jim

[axelp]

I have owned a TVM gun and have handled a few more of them. The one I owned was a good shooter, had a beautiful figured stock and it never let me down even once.  But it (and every one I have ever handled had the usual issues already discussed. Matt and Toni make a good functioning gun. They have a style that is historically inspired and all theirs, not a copy. Their website states that on every description.

They might not have a large marketing dept, but they have a long history of marketing and selling these guns and they have a strong following... They also produce a lot of guns every year--- way more than the usual home shop builder.

There were some originals that were thick and beefy---maybe not the rule though?...  I suppose its about what you prefer and what your pocket book can stomach.

K

[hanshi]

Besides, school, schmool, a rifle doesn't have to fit a certain school to be representative of the period but it must be built to emulate period guns without any glaring discrepancies.

Enjoy, J.D.
[/quote]



You do realize, don't you, that many on this forum will take issue with that - and I agree with you - statement?

[JDK]

I'm not scared.....   We've been down that road before.

Enjoy, J.D.

[Acer Saccharum]

To me, a bench copy of an original is a traditional gun. Everything else is a contemporary.

The Lehigh I just built is a contemporary. It has a lot of traditional style work in it.

The TVM rifles are contemporary. And, yes, they have a lot of tradition in them.

I think we all need to step back and define "contemporary" and "traditional", much as we did with the earlier "critique my gun' posts. This can be a fascinating discussion, exploring what we do and how we think about it, and define it. Without everyone on the same page with their terminology, it's going to turn into a shouting match.

[axelp]

Part of the fun for builders (I sense anyway), is to study the different schools--and/or geographical style differences, and to do work that will fit into these schools the goal being to create "sisters" or at least "cousins" with 80% of the same DNA. Especially if you are marketing your gun by the name of a specific School...

This is a subjective thing... I mean some folks actually think they are shooting a flintlock like old Dan'l Boone did even if it has a modern shaped synthetic stock with a scope. I suppose they are technically correct, but...

K