This is my third attempt at adding to the discussion of the poorly scraped and washboarded stocks. Between the computer an me its been a trial...
I nearly gave up knowing that its likely going to be about as popular as a lead balloon. Nor is this aimed at anyone in particular but the general cult of low quality finishes in general. But it needs to be said so here goes.
In order to produce a rough finish one must either have a lack of understanding of tool use or one must intentionally be making it it rough because someone thinks its "cool". I freely admit that I have limited access to originals here and thus my exposure is limited. I do know of a JP Beck smooth rifle with a smoother finish in the patchbox cavity than I see on some of the intentionally roughed finishes I see on the outside of some modern reproductions. So SOMEONE in Beck's shop was concerned with wood finish in this late rifle, probably circa 1800-1805 by the lock mortise shape and panel shape. Given this how do we justify rough EXTERIORS?
While I HAVE seen scraper marks sometimes pretty obvious marks I do not believe they would have been common on a Beck or an Armstrong WHEN IT CAME FROM THE MAKER. The Bettis rifle I had in hand for a week or two is an example. It was a sound working rifle of the 1870s +- finished with a common brown varnish. It had a lot of scraper marks from a rough sharpened scraper but it had no "flats" or "whoop-de-doos" that I recall. Just scraper marks. Had the scrapers been stoned smooth rather than filed then burnished, it would have been hard to tell it was scraped. Note the tiny "scratches" at the left side between the lock panel and the TG.
Then more apparent here.
But there is no "whoop-de-doos" with the curl being "proud". Someone know how to scrape curly wood.
Here is a piece of figured walnut I have been scraping mostly with chisels, gouges and scrapers and in fact went to the shop yesterday about 6 and did a little more with my large "roughing" scraper "sharpened" with a mill file and then burnished for a cutting edge. This was in bright sun from the side to show the tiny ridges. Very much like some shown on the Bettis rifle.
I normally run the edges of a scraper on a stone but was rough shaping this thing and just filed it and burnished it and I got "teeth" just like Bettis did.
This is what it looks like with a flash showing the figure.
If I put the scraper to the work improperly I can feel it running over the curl but if angled a little it goes away and leaves a flat finish. This scraper is made from a large "putty" knife used to apply sheet rock compound. Getting the plastic coating off was a PITA but its really cuts nice and is large enough for both hands. Compared to some of the scraped stocks I see on reproductions this is ready for finish. I do my best not to work to the
low end of a standard. Nor have the people I work for been indoctrinated to accept it.
If the scraper is sharp and smooth there is no mark left behind like this one cutting hard maple to refine a paneled toe.
Its not quite as shiny as a cut with a sharp chisel or gouge its still smooth. .
Nor do I see Bettis like marks on photos of European guns other than perhaps those vandalized in one way or another.
So we might ask; "How come?" Simple. They had standards. The guild would not accept just anyone as an apprentice. If the prospect met all qualifications but had no talent they rejected him in the probation period. However, in America anyone could be a "gunsmith" or more aptly a "parts assembler" as many of us are in comparison to someone ranked as Journeyman in the German guild for example. I used to work for a man who was apprenticed as a Machinist in Germany in the 1940s. He told me that the apprentices were given instruction and a file and a small sawn block of steel. The task was to make a cube. A perfect cube. German Machinist perfect. Wolf told me some of them got pretty small before becoming a cube. THEN they were to make a perfectly centered perfectly square hole in the cube. Ge this done and you can progress with your other training...
I suspect the guild for gunmakers was pretty rigorous too. It was a good trade and the masters were not going to have any slop artists dragging down THEIR reputation.
This is the place the first German Gunsmiths in America came from. Some may have been doomed to be Journeyman level all their lives since either there was no room for more masters, according to the masters, or they were not skilled or ambitious enough.
Then we come to America.
No guild, no "controlling authority" so anyone with the inclination can set up shop. Gunsmiths being paid to take on Apprentices can take virtually anyone as an apprentice and given that many were often short of money and did a lot of barter some cash may have resulted in some marginal apprentices being "trained" by perhaps less than qualified "masters". Then we have blacksmiths with some wood working ability, its not rocket science after all but without any training as to how to properly shape or even lay out a gunstock properly, what is the outcome? There are a lot of Kentucky rifles out there that show this. So we need to be careful in what rifles we choose to use as a guide.
Then we have economic conditions either endemic in some areas or the result of down turns in the economy for what ever reason. THEN owner modifications and additions, like someone who learned to scrape and burnish (bone) while in the Military. This was apparently fairly common make work for garrison troops. Now this guy comes home and turns his newly acquired "skill" loose on grandads old Kentucky and burnishes the dickens out of the curly maple stock giving is a wonderful washboard effect that would have perhaps enraged the original maker. Hey it worked great on the straight grained walnut on the Musket....
THEN people today look at this work, something like the Bettis rifle, which in all honesty with its mistakes and rough finish is still a perfectly functional working rifle made by someone at a time when all art in the Kentucky was dead and they were made as a low cost firearm for farmers or people of low income who still needed a working rifle. This does not negate the idea that they were made somewhat crudely both in form and workmanship compared to a Beck or a Armstrong and number of other makers in America both before and after the Federal period. Are they correct for what they are. Of course. But to take the workmanship displayed in rifles made in depressed areas, some makers who moved to Kentucky, for example, had to change the rifles they made to fit the area they were now living and working in. This from a class and conversations with a long time friend who has studied this extensively.
The ERROR comes we start to DEGRADE the appearance and quality of Golden Age guns that have all the bells and whistles but then the maker fails in doing the relatively easy final work to smooth the finish and properly final scrape and then burnish PROPERLY the stained and oiled wood to give a smooth finish.
Now one can leave the wood somewhat rough, stain if need be and then varnish. HOWEVER, if the first coat is thinned, especially on Walnut, a TRADITIONAL oil varnish will impart color to the wood in the first few days or week after applications. IE as the stock finish cures it adds to and enhances the color of Walnut. If the stock is left too rough then we end up with a lot of visible tool marks that can be seen right through a varnish coating even if it levels and smooths the surface. Staining will also bring these out.
Remembering that the originals were not finished with a virtually colorless synthetic finish might help in conceptualizing what I am trying to explain.
I wold point out the Bettis did not use sandpaper though he had it. Probably cost too much. Did he ever use it? Could not say.
Finally. If the scraper is carefully sharpened and properly used errors in wood finish will be rare. This gives a smooth enough finish that a common brown varnish, American Gunsmiths did not use commonly really hard to combine and expensive resins in the gunstock varnish and from the looks of surviving guns I am not sure the Europeans did as common practice either. Many of these, as used on musical instruments were often very hard to combine with oil requiring so much heat that any small mistake in temperature control would ruin the batch. So gunmakers used low cost/low temp resins for the most part that made a better gunstock varnish anyway. But the heating required in the making varnish ALWAYS darkens it. Unless its done in a vacuum and I cannot see Dickert or Beck making stock finish is a vacuum retort. So the traditional boiled oil and oil varnishes were DARK. Stand oil at the time was VERY labor intensive to make and keep clear and simply cost too much for the gunsmith to use so they did not use stand oil and even if they DID use it as a varnish base it would darken when made into a varnish. So clear finishes even spirit varnishes, were not used. But people have been indoctrinated in their use by people that frankly should have known better, and probably did, but money got in the way. So easy trumped traditional and proper as a result a lot of people are not using the right finish or stain and in fact some, based on posts here in the past, are almost fanatical in rejecting them out of hand.
So when someone tells me smooth finishes are too "flat" I have to wonder what plastic is being used for a stock finish. Many of these are notorious for making a nice piece of wood look like it was painted (this from a friend with quite a bit of experience as well working for a place that turned out a lot of wood stocked guns some years back.
I would also point out that even industrial revolution guns like Sharps and Ballards with a more colorless oil varnish will show brush or even skin imperfections of the person that put it on. These were not "dunked and dried" since there is NO finish anywhere but the exterior of the stock and this was before paint sprayers were common. Most were soft elastic varnishes as shown on surviving "minty" guns...
I will be watching for the raiding party....
Dan
