Creativity and Historical Correctness in gun building

[kaintuck]

I'm off of the "creative" line....I wandered over there for a rifle or two, and found that while building was fun....I wasn't satisfied with the rifles entire architecture. So, I have gone back to staying in a school or discipline. Now once I can look at a finished rifle and say I'm satisfied, then I will be able to add small personal distinctions....like Mr.Buchele's rifles.

And, life is too short to keep jumping around, but I DO enjoy an occasional southern Mtn rifle

SOMEday, I will build a "keeper" iron mounted kentucky, mine......

All this is fun......that's why I do it! Otherwise, it would be WORK......

[DaveP (UK)]

I haven't started a gun yet, I'm still at the stage of deciding what to build. I originally thought I had decided, but since I started coming here...  I have some ideas about what I like, and I fully intend to produce a stock that will fit me. Beyond that I feel quite strongly that if I am to make myself a modern "bygone" its important to base it within a fairly narrow time period. I'm currently thinking 20 years at the outside, less If I can manage it. If I use components separated by a hundred years too many people will be unable to see my work behind the wrongness and eventually it will look wrong to me too. I think I can afford to allow myself a little more leeway with geographical variation. The original smiths lived in a time when people, goods and ideas were on the move. I'm sure that they were creative men whose imaginations would be fed by novelty, and something of that would appear in their work. I'll be looking to make a fairly early, fairly plain gun that will suggest a date and maybe a place - and then I'm going to pretend that I'm snowed in for three months and pass the time by carving on it. I am in truth a compulsive fiddler 
This is just my personal, recreational, path. I have the greatest admiration for the skill and discipline of those who can set themselves more demanding goals, but it's not for every one. I want to live to shoot the thing!

[Captchee]

 Myself , im like many of you in that I simply do not like to try and recreate a duplicate of someone else’s work . Myself I find it rather stifling . I do however believe that it can be a very good training tool  but only as long as it doesn’t interrupt a persons own interpretations , imagination  and artistry .
At one time , many years ago I took and art class  in collage . The professor set a  picture of a goose decoy on a table  that she had painted and said draw what you see . Well I drew the goose  decoy . But it board me to death . So I added a couple grain stocks ,  some shotgun shells and a goose call . 
 When she saw my drawing she commented on the composition , form and shading . Even went so far as to say the artistry was wonderful . Then proceeded to give me an F because  the things I added , were not in her  painting . I packed up me easel, pencils and left . Never went back , just wasn’t interested . If I cant make something my own  then I just don’t feel like its mine .  It will always be  , X made by X ,recreated by X .  I just don’t like being that 3rd X

[B Shipman]

I like doing all sorts of things. The most boring thing to me, is something that I'm used to doing. It might be interpretive or comtemporary, it might "define me", but if it's repetitive, it's boring.

Bench copies push me to do things I'd not normally do, so I like them. A contemporary rifle might be one of a kin, so I like that.. Sure , you get into something that's popular and do it with variation again and again, but with me only for a time.

John Bivins is a good example. No one has influenced me more. But after the third 1770 Lancaster carved like a European furniture maker, I'd be inclined to move on.

[Micah2]

I know this for certain.  The bulk of our historically correct bench copies are made underneath 21st century lighting and with modern tools.  One can draw the line wherever they choose.  The american longrifle and it's golden age was not tethered by baroque or rococo styling.  It was contemporary for its time.  Surely there were Gunsmiths that scoffed at builders who strayed from traditional carvings and architecture much like some here do now.  In fact I would venture to say that more than one apprentice left the master prematurely for these reasons.  And now we copy the work of the apprentice! 

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

My gunbuilding has run the gamut.  And I am not finished yet.  I started with almost zero information and almost as little skill.  Much of the information that I had came from pictures in Dixie's catalogue, or from the brand new books I acquired, such as Baird's first Hawken book.  My first rifles were not good, but it was a start.  Back in the 70's the popularity of the Hawken rifle was a considerable stimulant, and I set about to recreate them as well as I could, with the components then available.  I greedily devoured every bit of information I could find, and purchased Wayne Robideaux's blueprint set.  My next couple of rifles featured all handmade  hardware - even locks.  The satisfaction level was gratifying.  But when I ventured out on my own, I built a very ugly rifle - several of them in fact.  A humble beginning.
So what has influenced my gunbuilding, and I might say the entire venture, is how much information I have been able to acquire.  That has been a journey in and of itself.  My first real revelations came from Kindig's Golden Age book, and Merrille Lindsay's Kentucky Rifle book.  Immediately my work became more interesting and a lot more credible, and it seemed to be appreciated because folks continued to give me commissions. 
For the next twenty years or so, I did not venture very far from the comfort of the original longrifles, and even now, I delight in taking an example of what we now agree to be an exemplary examples of original work, and doing my utmost to replicate it.  The joy of this comes in part from the research that goes into the rifle:  searching for as many images of a particular piece, communicating with knowledgeable builders and collectors, and then applying the information.  My Kuntz rifle is an example of that, though it is not a copy but a compilation of Kuntz work. 
I have a project on the back burner that will eventually become a southern rifle, and this one is going to come right out of my head.  Becoming a subscriber to this web site has, without reservation, been the biggest influence to my gunbuilding life.

Many thanks to you all.

[Hungry Horse]

My opinion is that local gunsmiths often took in traveling gunsmiths or apprentices, when they needed help. This was quite common I suspect. This practice often introduced  local gunsmiths, to styles and techniques, from outside their area. So, guns a bit outside the classic schools don't bother me. That being said, anything can be taken over to edge. A good example is the recent rat rod fad in the hot rod culture. It started out using the techniques, and styles of the early hot rodders, before the advent of massive aftermarket parts availability. But, it very soon got completely crazy. The creations today are nothing like the early cars. The same holds true with longrifles, and the mixed parts, and styles, seen on some modern creations. When I first got into muzzleloaders, these original parts guns were called blacksmith guns. Mostly because the metal parts from broken guns often ended their days at the blacksmiths shop. I have seen many of these horrid creations over the years. Many of the modern mixed style guns closely resemble these train wreck rifles. A good rule of thumb, is if you have to do a ton of mental yoga to justify your design, maybe you need to think about something a little closer to a known school.

                        Hungry Horse

[Robby]

I suppose I could ramble on and not make much sense to anyone but myself, so I'll let
Phil Sampson, as popularized by T.J. Sheppard say it for me, metaphorically speaking. Creative license !
Robby



I've known some painted ladies that sparkled in the light
Country girls that loved the lovers moon
Some I never really knew, though I always wanted to
Some I only met once in a room

Some said they liked my smile, others of 'em stayed a while
While others left me on the run
This is the only way, only way I have to say
I loved 'em every one

Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun

Here's to the ladies in saloons and living rooms
Summer nights that lasted until dawn
Here's to the memories, everyone's a part of me
Oh, I loved 'em every one

Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun

Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun

[Habu]

Historical correctness is important to me, but I don't think it is overwhelmingly limiting of creativity.  It just means working within the "artistic vocabulary" of the area and period. 

Quick, limited, example: look at the way animals were drawn on powder horns in the period of, say, 1750-1800.  Pay particular attention to the shading, and the outlines.  You find similar outlines and shading on animals engraved on rifles--bison engraved on Hawken patchboxes, tigers engraved on English rifles, etc.--as well as in period illustrations.  What they engraved on rifles, scratched on powder horns, etc, was shaped by what they saw--which in turn was shaped by the limitations of their technology.  For the most part, detailed realistic engraving, scrimshaw, etc, didn't start to appear until after the advent of photography. 

A rifle's design was shaped by the art and architecture (both formal and vernacular) of the time and area, as well as the needs and stylistic expectations of the customer.  When I approach a build, I try to look at what I know was done (from surviving examples), and the environment in which it was created.  That sets the parameters, creativity exists within those parameters. 

[J. Talbert]

Creativity is a key element of every art form.  It is generally a major factor that separates the standouts from the rest of the field.
Therefore, I would have to say that creativity is also key to gunbuilding.  However, if it is not at least rooted in historical correctness, it does not appeal to me.  

My great interest in this pursuit is the history, beauty and fascination with the guns that were made, and the people that made and used them 200 + years ago.  Why then would I be interested in making or owning a gun that bears little or no resemblance to those historic pieces?
Well made copies and interpretations of original works, as well as modern fantasy guns whose lineage is obviously linked to actual historic examples are both very appealing to me.

Without creativity there would have been no "Golden Age" of the longrifle.  Having said that, the  "Golden Age" is what first hooked me, so I'm not trying to reinvent it.

Jeff

[bama]

Thanks Jim for the thread and I agree with a number of the guys here on this thread that your work is a very well balanced mix of the tradional building process with an artisic design that pushes the envelope. Which is my mind is a good thing.

My only project that attempted to duplicate an original as closely as possible was the documentary copy that Darrin and I did on the Sheetz rifle project for the CLA last year. We literally spent hours pouring over every detail of that rifle. Thanks to Bob and Linda Melancon who owns the original for allowing us access to the rifle to compare the copy to the original, if not for this I doubt we could have pulled the project off.

The best compliment that I had on the rifle came from Mark Silver. When I pulled the rifle out of its case to show it to Mark at first he thought it was an original gun. It was not until he saw mine and Darrin's name on the barrel did he relaize it was a contemporary rifle.

That is what Darrin and worked so hard to accomplish, realism.

I do not want to make a career out of copying rifles but I do want realism in my work. The thing I learned most in making the copy of the Sheetz rifle is how John Jacob went about his work and what tools he used and what finish that he used. By struggling to know how he did his work it made me a better builder.

I also think that builders back in the day barrowed from each other and took designs with them as they traveled. I also think that builders changed styles as they moved. You can see this in John Armstrongs work. Look at the difference in his early work compared to his later work when he had developed his "pattern" that all of his later rifles becamed to be. Peter White is another example. His early work had that Maryland look and feel and after he moved to Bedford his rifles developed what came to be know as the Bedford rifle.

I personally am at the stage that I want to develope what I hope will become the Jim Parker style of rifle building. I don't know if that will ever happen but it will not be for lack of trying.

Good luck to all my brother builders.

[Artificer]

I don't think it is hard to believe that a costumer could have seen a rifle from Virginia/Caralinas or even new England  and requested certain details put on their rifle say from Lancaster. through out history artists always looked to the past for inspiration to create something new.

First welcome to ALR, hope you enjoy your stay.

I have always thought that when men, especially militia men were marched into strange (to them) areas that they saw things that were not commonly used in their own areas. I feel sure that many of them would have tried some of these things on their own after the campaign/war was over. I suspect this applied to their weapons and probably their dress as well. Wallace Gusler once told me that when the men from the "southern colonies" marched to Boston during the Rev War the locals there had not seen the hunting coats/frocks that the southern men were wearing. I believe he also mentioned they had not seen the longrifles that they were carrying. Surely some of them were anxious to try some of the different ideas after they got back home.  (bet you never thought you would see PA men described as "southern")

Dennis

Dennis,

Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states?  Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?

Gus

[hanshi]

I found the importance of creativity mentioned here a little bit surprising.  After seeing (and having) many guns attacked for non HC/PC (whatever that is), I almost came to the conclusion that copies were all that mattered.  Some of these copies/near copies are stunningly handsome and I admire anyone who can pull off such a build.  Finances seem to always stand in the way as I lusted after one of these really detailed guns.  

In reality I would not be thrilled with a close copy; they're just not my thing.  Any gun I have built must accommodate me, not the other way around.  As long as it is recognizable as a SMR/Lancaster/Ohio half stock/etc. at first glance, then I am satisfied.  Nothing wrong with a Lancaster, etc that is a bit generic.  Some features have to be modified to fit an individual properly (a custom gun, in other words) ; a replica of a museum piece won't always do that.  I've learned a lot by following this thread.  I hope these sort of discussions continue.

[Kermit]

Interesting, Micah. Lately I've been interested in reading about art forgers and their success, often because famous auction houses are more interested in the price of a work than its authenticity. Christie's no longer guarantees the veracity of anything they sell. Many successful forgers began by trying to become artists by copying masters. Some produced viable fakes by merely swapping in the foreground of one work over the background from another. From there it's a short hop to having absorbed the finest points of an artist's style that entirely new "lost" works get painted. One forger, Van Meegeren, was only exposed when a "Vermeer" he'd forged and sold to Goering surfaced after WWII. He was accused of being a Nazi collaborator, which carried the death penalty. To avoid hanging, he confessed to the lesser crime of art forgery. Some of the successful forgers got pushed in that direction when critics panned their original works, and so went about duping the art world's critics, experts, and auctioneers with their fakes.

[Mike Brooks]

I'll keep it short. Creativity staying with in historical context is what I'm all about the past couple years. It's probably obvious to anyone who knows my work.  That's what all the graffiti and antiquing comes from, purely entertainment and artistic statement. It's what keeps me from not going out and kicking a chicken from boredom.

[obsidian]

Soaking up what I can on ALR again tonight and finding this discussion informative and inspiring.  From someone relatively "new in town", I continue to form my perspective regarding HC.  Refreshing to see creativity connected to the building of HC guns.  Having seen and admired a lot of work done by you guys I am equally interested in the journey you have made and the point you are at.........waiting to see more of you tremendously talented builders with HC roots continue to throw together creativity, boredom and passion. 
Rich

[Artificer]

 For a later example, the Hawken brothers built plains rifles and local rifles of smaller caliber at less cost, but one can see the architectural similarities.  Would someone have success going to the Hawken shop and asking for a perch belly rifle?

Rich, 

Your post took me back to the 70's when I first got my copies of John Baird's books.  I remember seeing the couple of Hawken rifles with "shotgun" buttplates and thinking, "Gee, I wonder how the owners talked the Hawkens into that?!"  Grin.  Having said that, I could see myself wanting the buttplate in a shape like that.

Gus

[Artificer]

Gents,

I do not have the knowledge or experience many if not most of you all have, so have found this thread very interesting.

What I wonder about is in the lifetime career of an historic builder and the rifles he built,  is did he settle on a style that pleased his own thoughts on what a rifle should be and then modified it slightly to a customer's tastes when doing bespoke work? 

I also wonder if most or all the rifles he built during his career could be absolutely identified to him by someone else, if he did not sign the barrel or make some kind of distinguishing mark?   IOW, could some of his own rifles be considered "inaccurate copies" or "only close to" his work and perhaps made by someone else?  I seem to get this impression when people comment some unidentified original rifles could be attributed to two or three original smiths? 

I know if I lived in the time period (whatever time period you choose) and walked into a shop to order a rifle, I would NOT want an exact copy of another rifle as it more than likely would not fit me correctly.  Further, the more parts the smith actually made himself by hand, there would be more variation as the parts were handmade.  They would be "close" and probably discernible as to at least the smith's style if not made by his own hands, but they would not be identical.  Though I truly respect and admire the craftsmanship of anyone today who can make an identical copy of a rifle, I wonder if it was ever something an original smith would have considered or worried about? 

Then the question comes to mind how much creativity the original smith allowed to himself, because it WAS his "work" and how he made a living.  I imagine he had the most opportunity for creativity in his carving, engraving and other decorative work - but that would also have to include his skill level at the time he made the rifle in his career?  Still, he had to "get the rifle out the door" to get paid and make a living, so I imagine that somewhat limited his creativity? 

Just some thoughts and questions that came to mind while reading this thread.
Gus

[rich pierce]

The original makers seem to have run the gamut as far as creativity is concerned, as builders do today.  George Schroyer was one of the most creative in the range of carving and patchbox designs over a long career, but still had signatures that make his work easy to spot or at least attribute with some amount of confidence.  Maybe working over a long period of time influences the creativity of the maker also.  Bonewitz comes to mind as a maker of great skill and artistry but whose rifles seem to fall into easily recognized "models"; a couple patchbox designs, the carving almost always the same (but exemely attractive and well executed).  He is one of my favorite makers- guess I am saying he had great design and stuck with it.

[Curtis]

I am currently at a point in my short building experience of trying to capture the look and feel of period builders.  I appreciate and enjoy contemporary creativity as well.  As far as my creations go I like the hand crafted look as opposed to perfect precision.... Which I am probably not capable of anyway, lol.

[Archie Otto]

So how did all these different school's or designs develop throughout the specific regions of the country?  Why is a Southern Mountain Rifle design different from a Kentucky Rifle design?  Did design follow utility or was it purely the creative vision of the builders?  Did these specific designs become popular only due to availability or was it customer demand that drove design? 
 
Did builders like Haines, Dickert, Beck and the Hawken's (along with all the others) become respected gunsmiths by sitting in their shops waiting around for people to order rifles that resembled something the customer saw in a different region of the country?   Or, were they building their own creative designs to increase inventory for "off the rack" sales?  Would not a builder need to put their original product it in the hands of the end user and then through word of mouth those products established a reputation for durability, reliability, accuracy and aesthetics? 


 

[J. Talbert]

A couple recent posts touch on how creativity would have entered into the work of the original gunmakers.
It would seem that almost all of the gunmakers, whether by habit or by design, developed their own style to some degree or another.  This seems to be true for most all artists and artisans past and present.

It's interesting to me to look at a few different approaches of the early smiths at freeing up their creativity.
As recently mentioned, Schroyer was seemingly unafraid to try many different designs for his carving and patchboxes, as judged by the wide variations of signed and attributed pieces of his, which survive.

Next consider J. P. Beck.  To my knowledge, his work shows a fair amount of variation but several familiar features pop into my head when I think of him.   Namely The "whale tale" patchbox finial and several very Beck like variations of a Daisy finial, along with some oft repeated carving features and hardware.

Thirdly, consider the approach of one of my all time favorite makers, George Eister.  The vast majority of his surviving pieces are almost instantly recognizable because of his distinctive patchbox design, stock architecture, hardware and his considerable carving and engraving skills.  Though his work does not show nearly the variation of say  Schroyer, or even Beck, it certainly does not lack creativity.
His creativity is seen in the small carving and engraving details that make each gun unique, even while it exhibits Eister's signature style.

Jeff

[Micah2]

I try very hard to imagine what it was like back then.  I would guess that a gunsmith would use the same techniques if nothing else to be conservative.  Similar stocking, carving, engraving, and manufacturing of parts.  It is risky to practice new design or technique, and perhaps this kept regional builders in their school.
  What makes me more curious is what I call "the ugly gun".  We have all seen them.  Original guns that are ugly to the modern eye.  Be it architecture or finish, the ugly gun has a place in our history.  We see mostly the finer rifles of the day but we must remember that the ugly gun was firing at game and people in its day.  Perhaps these were busted up after the civil war in the south, or destroyed when an army demands that it's foes relinquish their arms.  I imagine that the French and British destroyed many guns as they had no use for irregular arms in their arsenal.  Also I imagine that Indians were very hard on their firearms and that these were bustEd up or torn apart for parts.  
At least that's my excuse for the ugly guns I build, HC after all.

[mountainman70]

I've wondered about that too, I am personally not a subscriber to just reproducing certain schools, periods, etc. Am currently building a "back woods gun", light weight , slim and .55 cal. (30 balls to the pound). Have also decided to make my own lock based on a Whatley, fairly large,probably late 17th century. Probably won't pass muster here---But, it will be all mine the way I want it. Of course I am just a crazy old man from the back woods.

Brother,you are in good company here.Dave in the mountains of WVa

[deano]

The Ian Pratt rifle featured on the contemporary builders  blog from MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 is on my to build radar soon, not a copy of anything but tastefully done in a style that just looks good. Woodbury-ish and well executed.

Build and own what you like and admire, though if it is weird enough be prepared for some strange looks along the way.

Ken