Finished my fence post.

[davec2]

This is a continuation of the previous series of posts thanking many of you for the lessons in gun building you have provided over the last several years.  (Previous stuff is here:   http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=23271.0  )

At any rate, I have finally finished the first of three rifles I started many years, and a lot less knowledge, ago.  After Bill Shipman's last posted rifle, I am a little ashamed to show these pictures.  But, since this rifle was almost destined to be firewood, or a fence post, I did what I could to salvage it using the lessons I have learned here and am anxious to sight it in.  Actually, I am giving it to my brother-in law, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, so I hope it shoots straight.

[Roger Fisher]

Sweet and then some.

[docone]

Awsome!
Gives me a lot to look up to.
Love the engraving.

[smylee grouch]

When I look back at my family tree, I think you and I are related. Very nice rifle and generous gift. He is very lucky that BIL of yours.    Smylee

[Elnathan]

If you have any more of those kind of fenceposts around that you don't need, I could probably find a use for them...

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

You have nothing to apologize for here Dave.  The rifle is delightful, and would be a significant addition to the best collection.  I really like it.   

[LehighBrad]

MUCH more pleasant to look at than that "second" Mona Lisa they claim was recently discovered. 

[alex e.]

Very nice!!

[Gaeckle]

Where's the fence post??

[Tom Currie]

Dave, Scratch that thought about being ashamed to post your rifle. Love all the engraving.

[LURCHWV@BJS]

Wow

  Simply  wow.

   The engraving is fantabulawesome.  Imagine that muzzle inlayed with Gold   that would pop

   Rich

[dannylj]

Boy, I must have missed a whole series of posts on problem rifles. That is a fine looking piece. Some of us might benefit from a run down on what is supposed to be wrong with it.  Danny

[Vomitus]

 Crisalli,you better insure your hands because you are one gifted fellow! I'll send you the shipping money. I can't have you beating yourself up any more! All nonsense aside, your workmanship is special. I'd like you to do a scrim on my horn.May I pm you?

[J. Talbert]

You got any other single sisters?   

[Mark Elliott]

All I can say is WOW!   I wish I could engrave like that.

[davec2]

Danny,

Things I think are wrong with this rifle:

1.  Technically, the first thing I don't like about it is not really "wrong" per se, but this rifle was made with a straight 13/16" barrel.  I had never held a swamped barrel rifle when I started this one.  After feeling the balance and seeing the lines of a rifle built by John Ennis with a swamped barrel, I don't think I will ever build a straight barreled long rifle again.

2.  The rear sight is way too bulky.  I will replace or rework it.

3.  The front sight needs a bead (per Taylor and Daryl and their posts on sights for older eyes).

4.  The engraving is really stark, does not flow well, and the overall designs are disjointed.  Parts of the engraving are OK, but the whole is lacking continuity.

5.  The carving is, as Acer pointed out in the other post about this rifle, fairly flat and mostly all in the same plane.  It is sculpted somewhat, but lacks depth.  I tried to add some depth, but couldn't do much with the carving as far along as it was when Acer pointed out the problem.

6.  The patch box hinge is atrocious.  I used a commercially available brass hinge and just soldered it to the finial and the box lid...........  Cheating!  Need to make a real patch box hinge next time.

7.  Again, this one may not be technically wrong but I'm still not sure I like the dual toe plates...and the engraving is really bad in a couple of spots on both of them.  Circles around the screw heads not centered properly.  The shell motif is not symetrical and has too many lobes.   Che sera sera....I will do better next time.

8.  Mostly the whole rifle doesn't look like one made by Huddleston, or Kibler, or Acer, or Shipman, or Taylor or ......many out there are much better guns built by much better masters.  And I remain, respectfully, ever the student....and I will keep trying to improve on the second one of these guns I started many years ago.

Thanks to all for the kind comments.  And to J. Talbert, sorry, I am fresh out of single sisters.

Leatherbelly, I sent you a PM.

Dave C

   

[westerner]

Yeah, it's perty bad all right.     But it's still better than anything Mike Brooks ever made! 

I know, I know, that was uncalled for. Heh heh heh.   


     Wes.

[Mike Brooks]

Yeah, it's perty bad all right.     But it's still better than anything Mike Brooks ever made! 

I know, I know, that was uncalled for. Heh heh heh.   


     Wes.

You're right of course.

[Acer Saccharum]

Mike, you took that with much grace.

Dave, you have tremendous skill. Your workmanship is top notch. Your artistry is definitely a signature style, very much your own. This is a great 'toolbox' to make a gun with.

There is a conflict of design.

I'm reaching for something here, and I am not really sure if it's misplaced. Bear with me, and take this with a grain of salt, as this is just opinion. What you have done is really a contemporary piece, based on a traditional gun format. The two don't really flow together. I think that creates tension in the piece.

Two things you can do:
1) choose the artistry to fit the gun style and period
2) choose the period and style gun that fits your artistry

If you wanted to apply your artistry to a gun, and have YOUR style fit with the era of the firearm, I would recommend a mid-to-late 19th Century muzzleloading target rifle. False muzzle, take down bolster breech, tang mounted target rear and hooded front sights. Something with a little Western or California flavor.

Just food for thought.

Tom

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Dave.... it is just beautiful...... Thanks for sharing it  with us....it is very inspiring!

[Gaeckle]

Danny,

Things I think are wrong with this rifle:

1.  Technically, the first thing I don't like about it is not really "wrong" per se, but this rifle was made with a straight 13/16" barrel.  I had never held a swamped barrel rifle when I started this one.  After feeling the balance and seeing the lines of a rifle built by John Ennis with a swamped barrel, I don't think I will ever build a straight barreled long rifle again.

2.  The rear sight is way too bulky.  I will replace or rework it.

3.  The front sight needs a bead (per Taylor and Daryl and their posts on sights for older eyes).

4.  The engraving is really stark, does not flow well, and the overall designs are disjointed.  Parts of the engraving are OK, but the whole is lacking continuity.

5.  The carving is, as Acer pointed out in the other post about this rifle, fairly flat and mostly all in the same plane.  It is sculpted somewhat, but lacks depth.  I tried to add some depth, but couldn't do much with the carving as far along as it was when Acer pointed out the problem.

6.  The patch box hinge is atrocious.  I used a commercially available brass hinge and just soldered it to the finial and the box lid...........  Cheating!  Need to make a real patch box hinge next time.

7.  Again, this one may not be technically wrong but I'm still not sure I like the dual toe plates...and the engraving is really bad in a couple of spots on both of them.  Circles around the screw heads not centered properly.  The shell motif is not symetrical and has too many lobes.   Che sera sera....I will do better next time.

8.  Mostly the whole rifle doesn't look like one made by Huddleston, or Kibler, or Acer, or Shipman, or Taylor or ......many out there are much better guns built by much better masters.  And I remain, respectfully, ever the student....and I will keep trying to improve on the second one of these guns I started many years ago.

Thanks to all for the kind comments.  And to J. Talbert, sorry, I am fresh out of single sisters.

Leatherbelly, I sent you a PM.

Dave C

   

Let me pick your self evaluation apart.....

1.    Oh well, straight barrel, no big deal....you're forgiven.

2.    So what...replace it if you so desire....

3.    Who needs a bead....no big deal.

4.    Engraving doesn't appear disjointed...it does have continuity and at the same time has contrast...it's neat and orderly.....it appears that each engraved item has elements of each other yet are different and allow the eye to wander.....definitely not boring.

5.    The carving is nicely done, stop complaining......if you must do better next time then so be it.

6.     Who cares, nobody knew untill now, stop worrying.

7.     Who cares, stop worrying, it makes it different than all the rest which is boring.....

8.      Stay true to thine self......don't be a copy machine.

.....go build another rifle.........

[Mike Brooks]

Mike, you took that with much grace.

I'm comfortable with my work so the truth doesn't hurt. This guy is a helluva engraver and carves just as well as I do so what's the big deal about saying so? Comparing our work is difficult, he builds highly decorated contemporary styled guns, and I don't. Apples and oranges.
 This is a fine gun and the builder shouldn't be so hard on himself. I like the engraving the most, always have like checkerboard areas and try to use them to some extent on my own work when I can. Again, not something I'd build, but a very nice gun nun the less.

[Jim Kibler]

A really neat gun Dave!  I think the metal work is generally quite nice.  Unique and different, but still appealing.  I think the stock work is not quite up to the level of the metal work.  There are some aspects of the architecture and carving designs that could be improved.  With that said, it's still a very nice piece with lots of appeal.  With regard to the metal work and engraving designs, it does seem to have a bit of a neoclassical feel with the geometric shapes and paneled elements in the design.  I think there is opportunity to incorporate this style into the stocking a bit more.  I know this is a stretch, but some of the elements on the metal parts give me the feel of Fordney work.  Might be interesting to look at some of this.  Just some thoughts....  A nice rifle.  Thanks for posting!

Jim

[BartSr]

Wow, thanks! Something for me to look up to.
Paul

[davec2]

First of all, thank you to all for your constructive comments.  My main purpose for posting this rifle is to garner criticism and methods of improving...and to thank you all again for all the help along the way over the last several years.  I'm not great at this but feel I am getting better by applying what I have learned from all of you.  And actually, to loosen up my style some I would like to make a rifle mimicking each of your styles...a Brooks, a Kibler, an Ennis, a Stephen Alexander, a Huddleston, a Curran, a Taylor S. etc., if that's OK with you guys.  (Not that I can do it, but I feel I will learn a lot in the attempt.)

Jim Kibler:  You commented on a rifle made by Chris Warner the other day and you said,

"It's a neat gun.  Some unique and creative approaches.  I don't see a great deal of continuity with the eintire piece, though.  Like so many guns I don't get the feeling of it being "one" or having the "entire package"."

I think these comments equally apply to this rifle of mine.  (And I actually get the same feel looking at a lot of pictures of original guns, except for the high end British types).  This one is a little disjointed.  Too may bits and pieces that don't all go together.  Its sort of like trying to assemble a jigsaw picture of Heidi Clum using pieces of photos of other beautiful women.  The result is just not quite the same and the lines don't flow as well.  You are also correct about the carving.  Same sort of thing Acer is discussing in his post here.  Learning the mechanics of gun building is one thing.  Learning the style and artistry involved is quite another and something I need to improve.


Dave C