how finished were the originals

[bnail]

I have not had the opportunity to view [or handle] any original rifles so have always wondered if the old builders left visible  tool marks on their builds.  I've always heard they routinely took shortcuts where they could. And even Homer Dangler mentioned that their carvings were not as finished as contemporary guns but that is because the focus has changed. So are visible tool marks common? or, did some builders had more attention to detail?

[Nate McKenzie]

I think age and poor eyesight had a lot to do with it. No electric lights or prescription glasses.  Try building one by daylight coming through a window or oil lamp wearing glasses from the peddler.

[JV Puleo]

What do you mean by "tool marks"? I'd say virtually all of the locks were purchased as finished products... barrels and brass bits were probably quite well finished as well. There isn't an original carved rifle in existence that hasn't been handled for at least 150 years and more like 200 in many cases so it is probably nearly impossible to say what they looked like new. I have what must have been a bargain basement militia musket made up in the 1790s from the parts of a 1711 dated Queen Anne musket. In its current state its practically unused and the stock surface shows little flats from the scrapers used to smooth it. But, it was an extremely cheap gun so its rough finish tells us nothing about what rifles (all of which were fairly expensive) looked like.

I can say that I've never taken the barrel out of an original and found anything like the level of inletting expected today on even a "mass produced" rifle, let alone a custom one. My impression is that modern makers do much better work than most of the 18th and early 19th century gunmakers... but they were tradesman trying to make a living. Today's makers are more in the way or artists, servicing a generally affluent constituency.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Joe is right but there are a few places you can look on original guns that can give you an idea of the level of finish.  Often, the bottom of the cheek piece was sawed straight across and you may see those saw marks if you look closely at the original gun.  The bottom of the butt stock is another place because it is often exposed (almost) end grain, which can be very hard,  and removing all file and scraper marks can be time-consumingly difficult. Finally, if there is carving, look closely at the background in corners. Is it smooth or can tool marks be seen in the wood? My impression, having finally looked at quite a few originals, is that the level of finish on civilian guns was pretty high but you often can still see tool marks in those places I mentioned. I firmly believe the makers were not as obsessed with perfection as we are today and that makes sense because they had harder working conditions and were not doing it for fun.  Also Bnail, my impression was they were not obsessed with symmetry.  For example, lock panels were not necessarily mirror images.

dave   

[Bob Roller]

 The Huntington Museum of Art has a nice collection of long rifles and others that are nice looking but then who really knows what they were finished with originally.I took Jud Brennan and Mick Brackett out there this week and they got a real treat.There are some superb pieces there.Cased pistols,Derringers,Sharps,J.Henry,the list goes on.Also a fine library for on premises research.A real but under used asset.

Bob Roller

[bnail]

The Huntington Museum of Art has a nice collection of long rifles and others that are nice looking but then who really knows what they were finished with originally.I took Jud Brennan and Mick Brackett out there this week and they got a real treat.There are some superb pieces there.Cased pistols,Derringers,Sharps,J.Henry,the list goes on.Also a fine library for on premises research.A real but under used asset.

Bob Roller

Need to see that exhibit. Thanks for the tip.  Never considered the modifications and restocks that likely occurred.  Something to think about. 

[Dave B]

sorry for the poor quality of these photos but you can see the tool marks in the wood at the wrist and in the field of the carving of the cheek side.








you can see the clear flats left by the scraper and no attempt to round off the high points. There are still som under lying scratches from the scraping as well. Not all have this much character showing with regard to tool marks. but this one tops the cake for the original examples that I have. I will retake the photos once I find the silly thing. Moving has causde me to loose track of the butt stocks I have.