Creativity and Historical Correctness in gun building

[Jim Kibler]

This subject was touched on a bit in another thread.  I just thought it might be fun to discuss and get the thoughts of others on this subject.  There's certainly a wide range of approaches that that fall within either of the extremes.  Everybody seems to find what they enjoy most and what type of work makes them happiest.  So what are some thoughts on this subject?

[Tom Currie]

Jim, Should be a good topic. Creativity for myself is applying artictic elements that are appropriate for 18/19th century longrifles without directly copying designs from extant examples.

So it's working in defined guidelines, while trying to do something a bit different than what we have remaining as examples.  An example would be the 2 signed Christian Oerter highly wire inlayed rifles, they're pretty similiar but one more highly decorated that the other, if we found a third one what would it look like ? Can I design it and have it be recognized as a realistic ? Another example would be Moravian rifles, we have just a few examples but what did the 98% of the other rifles look like, can I design and build a believable example ?

[oldone]

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.

[Pete G.]

That's a subject I constantly struggle with. I tend to use historical examples for inspiration without making a copy of an existing gun. A lot of times there is a question in my mind on whether I have produced something that could have come out of such and such a shop, or have I just created a mish mash of stolen details? There is a fine line there, but just where does it occur? Is a fantasy rifle something that is totally thought up by the builder, or is it something similar to existing works and possibly could have come from say, the Dickert shop? There are degrees of that also. A builder can easily produce a piece that may not be totally historically correct, but does that mean that it is wrong; and just who makes that decision?

Another area I see in historical correctness is the level of craftsmanship. This is not a criticism of those who are capable of producing a "Super Gun" and doesn't really affect me so much because I don't have the patience/ability to produce one of that level, so I settle for the "workmanlike manner", which is maybe a cop out for not taking the extra time and effort to really produce a top tier rifle, but I can take solice in the fact that a lot of the old guns were nowhere near some of the stuff produced today. Granted that some carving has not survived 200 years or so in unblemished condition, so it is difficult to tell, but there are still some tool marks that are discernable even today, and engraving on a lot of existing guns is something that would be unacceptable in today's world. Where do you draw that line ? I don't know. I am satisfied that what I build will give the user the experience of an 18th century gun, which is really my goal to begin with.

Personally, I have always liked the Beck rifle that you recently created, with the exception of that bent trigger guard. I have often wondered on seeing that piece if the double triggers were a backfit and the original guard were modified to fit. I would not use that little detail on anything I ever produced because it just seems so incongruous with the rest of the rifle. I do realize that it is a documented copy and that is why it is like that, but that raises the question that if you intend to build a copy, do you copy the mistakes also (if that could really be called a mistake)? This also raises the point that I have never seen a copy that when placed alongside the original, that something somewhere was just not quite the same. It may be very subtle, such as the countour of the lock plate or a slightly different size of a screw, but the difference is there.

I suppose it could be argued that none of the stuff we build today is really historical because we use machined steel barrels, cast steel locks and investment cast furniture, all while working under electric light and air conditioning.

All this has made my head hurt.....I'm going back out to my shop.

[tallbear]

I think that the term “Historically Correct” while being a valid subject of discussion and a subject that I enjoy,it’s a term that’s almost impossible to define.It means so many different things to different people that no definition can be settled on particularly  on the internet.

That being said I personally find that guns that closely follow particular schools / originals to be more pleasing to my eye.That’s just a personal preference.While this may stifle creativity to some degree,there are very few builders myself included who have the necessary vocabulary (as Wallace would say)to pull off a pleasing  gun that strays too far from the historical examples.The reason “New School” work such as John Bivens and some of the latest work by Jim Kibler is so appealing (not just because of their skill at execution) is that it had a strong foundation in historical work.They learned to crawl before they walked if you will.I think too many builders try to get too far outside the historical “box” under the guise of being “creative” too soon.

That’s just my 2 cents!!!

Mitch Yates

[rich pierce]

I like the idea of attaining a certain degree of skill or mastery before taking off into the realm of creativity, but also believe people should build what they want to build.  It's the best way to be invested in the project.  Also, not everyone is equally gifted and trained, either technically or artistically.  Many people think that mastery should be easy, but that rarely is the case in any field of endeavor.  In music, there are musicians who can play, and improvisers, and songwriters, but not everyone is going to be notable.

[smylee grouch]

I am in the middle of a build(Lancaster) where I used the profile of one builder, the carving of another and patchbox and engraving of yet another of the Lancaster school. Would that be considered correct? I dont care anyway because the gun will be mine and thats what I wanted when I built it. Would this approch be considered creative or not?

[Kermit]

Interesting discussion! Keep it coming. As part of the ignorant unwashed, I always benefit from the ideas expressed by the knowledgable.

[sz]

I believe John Bivins said it all very well in his descriptions of the 4 basic categories.
#1 is Documentary recreation.  These are guns made exactly as the old ones were “mistakes and all”.  These are the ones that sell to the most dedicated of the reinactors

#2 is interpretive recreation. .These guns are made in the style of an old school or even a single maker, but mix details from one gun to another.  An example might be to look at 4 different JP Beck guns and make a gun that has carving from one with a patch box from another and so on.  A student of Beck’s work would see the new rifle as a “Beck style rifle” but not a copy of a specific Beck rifle.  The area of building opens up quite a lot when we start talking about areas (Like Lancaster) instead of makers (like Beck or berry or any other one you may like)

#3 is New School.  These are guns made in the style of the guns made long ago, but in the art form that the modern builder likes.  In other words this would be the rifle a builder would make if he were to be transported back in time and have to compete for his place in the market in 1790 or 1800.  He would not copy anyone but would try to make guns that other smiths of the era. would want to copy.
New School is the category that proves the real Golden Age of the American Longrifle is now, not 200 years ago.

#4 is Modern.  This category includes such things as plastic, inlines, smokeless powder and so on.

I build guns from categories #1 #2 and #3.

 I build what my customers want as long as they don’t go into #4

[flehto]

Possibly to "boil this down" ...if a LR is built that at FIRST GLANCE is attributed to whatever "school" it's supposed to emulate, even though it incorporates features from different original builders of this same school,  wouldn't this LR be considerd somewhat w/in this "school"?  A LR built this way could have the description of "generic", but still be recognized as simulating the intended "school"?

I don't have any exposure to originals, not the knowledge  and not the artistic ability to duplicate an original in the fullest sense....so, I build LRs described in the first paragraph. That's the best I can do....and when one of my LRs is completed and advertised for sale as a certain "school", the  many customers so far have never questioned this. ...not proof positive  I'm doing it right, but satisfies me.

I also can't "invent" features that have the "feeling" of a particular school, but don't have any precedence  in any originals. That requires a very "artistic mindset" to pull off . So...what to do? Just do what I've been doing all along as described in the first paragraph......Fred

[Acer Saccharum]

I like to study the firearms from a certain culture, from a certain window in time before I build one. It's like immersing oneself in the language before speaking it. So I take artistic license, but it's within the realm of possibilities of the culture and era. I like to hunt out historic examples of stock styles, of barrel length, carving and engraving, put all of these in a folder in my mind, and then draw off this memory bank during the creative process.

So I would say that for me, basing my work on historical example is on equal footing with the creative.

To create makes me happy.

I'm very glad you asked the question, Jim. It causes us to pause and take our bearings once in a while. I find that why I do things changes over time. It's good to take stock of yourself every so often.

[mwhartma]

Hello I'm new to the forum and to building rifles, I'm currently working on a rifle that in my opinion would be considered American colonial prior golden age. My thoughts are that the builders of the time were in business, thus they were building for customers. They may have put their own personal "style" per say in the rifle, however could it be that costumers who commissioned them to build rifles had some say. 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. There was a building back home in Indiana down town that had Greek pillars, renaissance art and the building represented medieval architecture.
Just my 2c

[Dennis Glazener]

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

[jerrywh]

Starting in 1725 if everybody was historically correct all the guns would look alike to this day.  Almost every gun maker was a contemporary in his day. However I do like the guns of all eras. whatever.  But I sort of dislike exact copies. I can understand why somebody would want one but outside of money I can't understand why anybody would want to build one. Some people build one just to try out their talents. that's good I guess. You will learn by doing so.  I know guys that have built over 200 guns and the last one looks just like the first one.  I couldn't stand the boredom of that. I get bored just building a set of pistols or engraving 2 locks the same.

[rich pierce]

Sort of a fork in the road there.  Maybe we're talking about the creativity of the original gunsmiths.  Some were; some stuck to a model for the most part.  Architecture seems to be a strong signature although it varied with the times as rifles became slimmer in the later Golden Age.  Regarding the idea that a gunsmith would make whatever a customer wanted, I've always felt that if a customer wanted something like a rifle that Bill built, he'd be best off going to Bill for that, not Jack.  Especially true if there was plenty of business at hand.  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?

[Dennis Glazener]

Regarding the idea that a gunsmith would make whatever a customer wanted, I've always felt that if a customer wanted something like a rifle that Bill built, he'd be best off going to Bill for that, not Jack.

Unless the customer wanted something like he saw in another area of the country. Then he would need to explain to Bill or Jack what he wanted.
Dennis

[shortbarrel]

My brother and me have built about six or seven rifles over the years from book pictures or photos from outside the glass case in museums. They are not completely correct, but close. I have done one bench build and it was correct. No store bought parts went into the building of any of these rifles. All had wrought iron barrels and hand made locks and the rest if the hardware wrought iron or brass. If you are locking to build a replica and buy store bought parts you will have to alter them somewhat and then whey might not work to your satisfaction . Dennis: loved your post. BTW have you seen Jim Webb lately.

[PPatch]

Historically correct vs creativity... Take the guns you build Jim K, or at least the ones I have seen pictures of - are they historically correct? Yes and no, they are of a type, the Golden Age PA long rifle, yes, they are very evocative of that period, their architecture is spot on for the era as are their furniture. They are well crafted, very well. In fact one might say they are better rendered than most originals that we know of today. Where you shine is in your creativity in interpreting that era and showing your individuality in through your decorating/carving which while "within the school" are pushed and at the same time constrained in a taunt and recognizable Jim Kibler style. Similar words would describe a lot of the experienced contemporary builders today.

Personally I wouldn't, actually I couldn't, see building exact replicas of these muzzleloaders, I would bore of such work quickly. I want, no, need, some creative leeway although I try and base work on the era and style of the period it represents. I did quite a bit of research on the Lancaster and settled on Dickert as my model. I am now involved in a Tennessee style and research has lead me to the Bean family and their sparse rendering of the long rifle. But Willy Higgins is pulling me toward a more artistic mode, I will land somewhere in between no doubt. It will resemble a Tennessee mountain rifle, it will not be one.

The study of history reveals the era and the style, our creativity pushes us to do.

dp

 

[Mark Elliott]

As evidenced by Willy Higgins,  southern gun makers were a creative group.    If you are building southern guns, you have a lot more latitude in what you do.   

[oldarcher]

I build what I like, in the fashion of the specific school but never an exact copy of any specific builder or rifle. The goal is to build a rifle that would be acceptable to the time period not an exact bench copy of anyone else's work.
I believe that you should build what pleases you as the fun in black powder shooting/building is in the journey not just the destination.

[galamb]

Haven't done enough rifles yet to say one way or the other but tried building one "true to the plan original" and didn't like how restricted I was. I had to keep stopping myself from making a little change here or there that I thought would look better, work better etc.

Current build fit's nicely into the definition posted on "interpretive recreation". It's a collage of seven different rifles from the same builder spread over 30'ish year period - picking what I like best from each and then throwing it all into the blender to see what comes out when done.

Some would say if you go for a screw for screw copy it's a fake or a forgery.

Others would say if you don't it's a fantasy gun.

I leave such arguments to those who feel some need to take a stand either way and debate/defend their position.

I just want a rifle that somewhat resembles the work of the gun maker who has caught my eye and if in someones opinion it's not 100% HC/PC because I decide to use German Silver on a pre-1830 piece or it's a "fake" or whatever, that's ok, for I probably would not invite you to shoot it anyhow if those things were important to you and you would likely decline the offer if I did.

[James Rogers]

I like to incorporate my own flare and artistry (what little of it I possess) while being restrained reined in within the historical/geographical/cultural, etc.
This requires a bit of self study as opposed to someone else's opinions,  sometimes cloaked as facts.
On other boards especially I often see the "do it my own way" argument from those who have little control over the outcome of their project, whether it be lack of technical ability or research.
I am not saying this is all cases as I know quite a few who work well outside the box very effectively.

And to Mr. Kibler who started this thread......your depth of knowledge of the historical and period correctness side of things allows you to create some of the most correct and believable pieces out there. That same foundation is also what allow you to supercede others in effectively going off the path when you so choose.

[pushboater]

Personally, I find no joy in copying someone else's work whether it be an original builder or a contemporary builder. I try and keep to a particular architectural school, such as Lancaster, Lehigh, or Bucks Co, as an example, and I try and use furniture that would have been used in that particular school, but from there I like to try and design the artistic features to please me, again trying to stay within the realm of what would look appropriate to that particular school. I have yet to build a rifle specifically for someone else. I have no one to please but myself, therefore I have a lot of artistic leeway. I'm of the opinion that just because an example of a particular style or type of rifle does not exist today, that does not mean that it was never built. To me It simply means that it could have been built and simply never survived. Of the tens of thousands of original Longrifles that were built, only a fraction have survived. Who's to say what's appropriate and what's not? I guess, according to John Bivins anyway, the rifles I build would be considered New School. I build what makes me happy and I build for the fun of building, not to adhere to someone else's preconceived notion as to what is right or wrong. I'm one of those builders who likes to think outside the box, and I make no excuses for it! I think Oldarcher said it best when he said that the fun of Blackpowder shooting/building is in the journey, and not just the destination.

[Acer Saccharum]

What would Jim Kibler think about this question?

[dlubbesmeyer]

Thank you so much for the opportunity to "hear" your voices. I am amazed by the leadership here that has so inspired me to be a better builder. As a beginner, your insights mean a lot to me.
If I may make a comment; it appears to me that in life there are many worthwhile endeavors that are difficult to achieve. For me and I would assume for most of you, building long rifles is one of them. Having the " skeleton" of structure and "schools" seems essential to success in any higher craft or art be it motorcycle building or painting. You may be able to pull off a custom cool looking work occasionally, but consistently keeping the framework intact seems to make the difference in longevity of the art form. That being said I find it is often the personal creativity that carries it further and  sets it apart as a desired accomplishment; as we see in the RCA books and certainly in this forum from contemporary builders. I personally am greatly enjoying this journey!