Fantasy Rifle

[Joe S.]

every gun ever built from way back then till sometime when it all ends was somebody's fantasy at least their first one.

[rich pierce]

as said, all we can do is build a suggestive representation of a general style or specific gun. be it hand entirely made, or made with the help of modern machinery, it is still only a representation of an original, or an assumption of what the builder thinks existed back then. there's nothing wrong with that. there are many guns that have been built that mimic no original, yet are  good a representation of a style from a particular era. I like to think that any gun made, as long as it follows a somewhat broad parameter of being a muzzle loader built with traditional lines and reasonabley accurate parts is as good a representation as any gun built to be an exact copy of a specific gun or style of gun.

That may have been true back when there were few good books showing originals in detail, pre-internet, etc.  Now everyone has access to many originals.  A tremendous amount of knowledge is available. Parts patterned directly off originals are readily accessible. Many builders have direct access to fine originals and every serious builder could afford a period study piece if they value that, to really understand architecture, fit and finish. So it's achievable nowadays to make rifles that would have passed back in the day for a gun from one of the centers of rifle building.

And it's been possible for 30 years or more. There's a story of a Earl Lanning building a Dickert style rifle, aging it, covering the signature with a piece of tape, and taking it to a gun show with dozens of experienced collectors attending.  Nobody guessed that the signature could possibly say, "Earl Lanning" when he took the tape off.

[ron w]

I suppose there are a handful of guys that could pull that off, still, no matter the level of exact replication, it is still just a representation of what was built many years ago.

[WadePatton]

Since this is a hot topic, and often "new" folks don't do a lot of research before buying that first kit or compilation of parts but they might see this posting, let me throw in another example of "number III" as described in the OP.

A Germanic lock is jarringly out-of-place (not time) on a TN rifle, despite all the kits and prebuilts that come with such.  It's a peeve. Try English, as all originals I've seen are equipped.  Also note that this has nothing to do with the functionality or reliability of any one lock over the other. I have absolutely nothing against Siler locks on any gun that properly calls for one.

Also don't use "all" or "never" when describing TN's.  Because somewhere there's an exception to each "rule." Maybe everything was done here or there by somebody once, but the vast majority fit a regular schedule of rules.  Put too many exceptions on your gun and I'll call it a SMR.  Matter o' fact, that's what I call "SMR".  A gun that but for 2 or more features fits into my notion of TN guns. 

Fix me if I'm wrong here.  I have plenty more to larn.   

Feel free to start another thread on this particular subject but we've "kicked it" around a time or two before.

[rich pierce]

I suppose there are a handful of guys that could pull that off, still, no matter the level of exact replication, it is still just a representation of what was built many years ago.

"JUST a representation of what was built many years ago."

You make it sound small.  It's quite an accomplishment.

[Mike Brooks]

I suppose there are a handful of guys that could pull that off, still, no matter the level of exact replication, it is still just a representation of what was built many years ago.

"JUST a representation of what was built many years ago."

You make it sound small.  It's quite an accomplishment.

All of this  from a guy that hasn't yet built a muzzleloading rifle.....

[Daryl]

Mike B. may be on to something; I mean, I still believe I'm part Klingon. 

HA!- I discovered how to get rid of Klingons a long time ago. Are you saying that if you don't get rid of them, they become part of you?

[oldtravler61]

  All I will say is that someday I want to make a gun like my friend does. An have two experts drooling over it. An wonder which antique dealer it was bought at. An it had a Siler lock on it too! Modified but still a Siler. Oldtravler

[Daryl]

I suppose there are a handful of guys that could pull that off, still, no matter the level of exact replication, it is still just a representation of what was built many years ago.

That is correct and your point of bringing that up is?

No one is building a 'replica' or bench copy and claiming it is an original - at least no one here would do that.  There are a few here who can and do build bench copies, but they do not claim them to be 'originals'.

I still don't see your point or why you seem to think you have to declare these guns are "representations". We know that, general knowledge - lets move on. Were you trying to start a fight? I believe that is called trolling.

[Daryl]

Why is this in the shooting forum?

[hanshi]

Mike B. may be on to something; I mean, I still believe I'm part Klingon. 

HA!- I discovered how to get rid of Klingons a long time ago. Are you saying that if you don't get rid of them, they become part of you?

Well, I don't know...maybe ore it could merely be uhhhh; geeze, you done got me on that.   

[hanshi]

And I'll also mention that all but one of my flinters have the proper lock and the proper hardware.  I don't know what that makes them; but they are mine. 

[Joe S.]

Mike B. may be on to something; I mean, I still believe I'm part Klingon. 
 
HA!- I discovered how to get rid of Klingons a long time ago. Are you saying that if you don't get rid of them, they become part of you?

Well, I don't know...maybe ore it could merely be uhhhh; geeze, you done got me on that.   

I believe the joke goes.....What do the Enterprise and toilet paper have in common?They both circle Uranus looking for Klingons

[Turtle]

I don't pretend to be good enough to duplicate an original fine longrifle or fowler, besides I enjoy building a unique arm. I try to incorporate the style. decoration, finish of arms from a particular period or location. For example, I wouldn't make a southern rifle with fancy brass engraved furniture or carving. I really enjoyed building my newest new England fowler "borrowing" ideas from several different originals of the proper location and time and even exaggerating some. Different strokes.
                                                   Turtle

[jerrywh]

Fantasy rifle have been built all through the ages.  I his time Melchoir Fortney was a fantacy rifle builder. The flintlock was a progression. Nobody wanted to go to the percussion system. What is a fantasy rifle to a commoner is a common gun to a king or a billionaire. A Dickert rifle was a fantacy to somebody. An Indoor toilet was a fantasy to a mountain man.  Eienstein was right when he said all things are relative.  However I understand the term. The term is used by many but not all to refer to a gun that they cannot build.  If all guns today were built period correct it would be an extremely boring show and somebody like Cabelas would put you all out of business very quickly. What produced the golden age flintlock was fantasy builders of the 18th century Colonies. A fantasy wife to you isn't a fantasy wife to Trump. That's the way it is.

[jerrywh]

 I'm building a fantasy rifle now that will drive Mike Brooks out of his mind. 

[Mike Brooks]

I'm building a fantasy rifle now that will drive Mike Brooks out of his mind.

Short drive......

[Turtle]

 To clarify my post, I was told by a builder that one of my guns was a fantasy rifle because no known original had the features of my gun all together in one rifle. So even though all the features were location and period correct, my gun was a fantasy rifle and inferior. I don't agree with this.
                                                            Turtle

[pushboater]

It's widely consider a fact that Nicholas Beyer more than likely apprenticed under J P Beck, but other than using the same furniture and architecture, he did not copy the work of the Master. He used his own embellishments to build rifles that were uniquely his. Did Nicholas Beyer build fantasy rifles? Of course not. Why? Because he lived and worked during the same time period and was trying to build original rifles to his own style. Something to set himself and his work apart from that of his master. But if someone builds a rifle today, in the style of one of the old masters, using furniture appropriate to that school but using his own imagination in regards to embellishments, then he just built a fantasy rifle. Why is that? I feel he just built an original rifle in the style of one of the old masters just like Nicholas Beyer did. I'm currently building what many on this forum consider a fantasy rifle. A late period Bucks county Swivel Breech. There are no known surviving examples of a late period Bucks county Swivel Breech. That's not to say that one was never built and simply did not survive for 250 years. Does that make it a fantasy rifle? I guess one could make that argument.

David

[n stephenson]

Nothing too flashy. No aging to the wood or metal parts (let's make it look all new).

All the old rifles were "new" at one time.   

Cheers,
Smoketown

All of my aged rifles were new at one time as well. Did you know that a Carolina gun in native hands lasted on the average 2 years before it was used up? Just a little fantasy trivia.

Hey Mike I bet those Carolina guns lasted longer in Indian hands than those Carolina settlers did!!!  I don`t really care if anybody or everybody builds fantasy guns. If you pay for the parts I feel like you should build what suits you.Your the one that will live with the results anyway.No matter   what you do your not going to suit everybody so, suit yourself.                 Nathan

[oldtravler61]

  This is really silly. You don't think that back then someone looked at another's work an decided to build his own style. Like we do to day? Maybe why there are a lot of unsigned rifles. Just a thought. Mike

[PPatch]

Artisans and the well to do have been in symbiotic relationship since recorded time, and probably before. Each needing the other, one to support their artistic endeavors, their drive to create, and the other to display their individual taste, and wealth, according to the era and their culture.



Who is to say where art turns to fancy, or fantasy? Where is the line?





I believe the "line," if there is one, exists only in an individual's point of view from their particular era and culture, a thing that that shifts and ebbs over time according to fashion. We cannot judge from our own era and culture why some gunsmith or another did what they did with their creation, nor, in many cases, know who their patron may have been. It is a sure thing though that both the artisan and the patron were driven by current fashion and cultural mores.



Beautiful, sublime, or gaudy and ugly? How do you know, how do you judge.

dave
 

[hanshi]

Hmmm...   Along those same lines, Dave, It could possibly be said that the clothes one wears to work, church, etc, are fantasy clothes.  They certainly don't look anything like the originals now do they, folks?  Are the "Woodbury" style rifles from the House brothers a style or a fantasy?   

[Bob Roller]

I suppose there are a handful of guys that could pull that off, still, no matter the level of exact replication, it is still just a representation of what was built many years ago.

The Hawken copies of T.K.(tom) Dawson come to me mind when thinking of precise replication.
He could and did copy the mistakes,accidents and mineral streaks in the wood on some of them.

Bob Roller

[PPatch]

Hmmm...   Along those same lines, Dave, It could possibly be said that the clothes one wears to work, church, etc, are fantasy clothes.  They certainly don't look anything like the originals now do they, folks?  Are the "Woodbury" style rifles from the House brothers a style or a fantasy?   

Regards H. House Hanshi; I believe his work is an evolution of the longrifle according to his artistic vision. Nothing wrong with that IMO. There are quite a few who wear the old duds today, reenactors, living history buffs and lets not forget those fine craftsmen and women at Colonial Williamsburg. Are they living a fantasy, in some ways, yes. Are they selling a fantasy, I think not, I believe they are doing what they came there to do, learn,educate and further their, and our, knowledge of a bygone era. Nothing wrong with that either.

dp