What do you guys do....?

[thecapgunkid]

Over this past year I have heard several authors, videos and makers comment briefly on how not every rifle was exquisitely made, and the old makers, constrained by either cost or limited funds by customers, made guns that showed limitations such as not finishing the inside of the trigger guard all the way, or a simpler, maybe cruder carving or some such.

I don't allow a lot of wiggle room when I make shoes because I can really hurt someone up to their hair with a bad "build", and there are enough coffee stirrers and sawdust patches in the few guns I have made to make me cringe,  so I am not talking about covering boo-boos.

Rather, beyond just being a basic gun, what I would like to know is what do you guys do when building a simpler gun that makes an historical statement such as being made for the marginal man on the edge of the colony, or something that is antiqued without being stressed?

Thanks,

Capgun

[g2608671@verizon.net]

Over this past year I have heard several authors, videos and makers comment briefly on how not every rifle was exquisitely made, and the old makers, constrained by either cost or limited funds by customers, made guns that showed limitations such as not finishing the inside of the trigger guard all the way, or a simpler, maybe cruder carving or some such.

I don't allow a lot of wiggle room when I make shoes because I can really hurt someone up to their hair with a bad "build", and there are enough coffee stirrers and sawdust patches in the few guns I have made to make me cringe,  so I am not talking about covering boo-boos.

Rather, beyond just being a basic gun, what I would like to know is what do you guys do when building a simpler gun that makes an historical statement such as being made for the marginal man on the edge of the colony, or something that is antiqued without being stressed?

Thanks,

Capgun

Excellent question, I wish I had asked it.  I enjoy building but I have limitations and I know that I can not do inlay work or stock carving so I no longer even attempt these things as I know they will lead to things I will kindly refer to as blemishes and refrain from calling them on this site what I do call them when they occur.

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

Not finishing the bottom of the barrel where it is concealed by the stock wood is a real time saver.  Also, leave the long shank of the lock nail screws and the tang screw rather coarse.  Just using a nut for the tang screw anchor is a lot quicker than using a trigger plate.  I don't think that I have ever finished the trigger guard inside of the bow finer than a medium file.  None of this will degrade the appearance or function of the gun.  P.S., I probably never finish a gun bore to a true mirror finish - too lazy.

Jim

[Mike Brooks]

Elimination of decoration. Eliminate all unneeded parts, buttplate side plate, pipes nose cap. Cheaper grade of wood, straight barrel instead of swamped. Use as many ready made cast parts as I can as apposed to hand made parts.

[Nordnecker]

I'm glad somebody asked this. I have built many things in my life. I enjoy the process more than the product. I know my limitations. But this is what bugs me. Only someone who really knows and understands DETAILS can truely appreciate or critique them. I have really anguished over very subtle details only to have someone look at it and say either, "That's pretty." or nothing at all. It is somewhat frustrating, but you can't blame them. They are ignorant of the details. They didn't study the original like you did. They have nothing to compare yours to.
Members of this site, and others like it, know these subtle details and apprecaite what it takes to build something that is authentic and correct. But many people just don't. They aren't challenged by building anything. They'd just as soon buy it. It's just a product to them.
Wanna read a good book? Read "The lost Carvings" by David Esterly.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I build decorated and simple guns. My next project is a recreation of British commercial musket restocked in the colonies. Nothing fancy, however, the basic workmanship will be as good as I can make it without fussing overly and I know what the musket should look like.  You don't need to be able to carve or engrave to build good, functional, and attractive guns, but the basic workmanship should show skill and attention.  In my opinion, every gun should show evidence that the maker had the basic skill set.  It is OK to cut corners but if done on a gun poorly made it looks like sloppy work.  If done on a well made piece, it can suggest efficiency of cost and effort.

dave 

[oldtravler61]

  Captain this is a good topic. The guns I build are from scratch except for barrel an lock. Mostly I build smr style guns. I have been complimented on my incise carving but I think it stinks. To many years spent in quality control. Thus I am to critical about my work. When I work on any forgings whether brass or metal I finish it top an bottom. To me there's nosense in doing half donkey. But then that's me. As far as having my work critiqued by someone else it doesn't matter. This site does it for me by looking at other's work.  Oldtravler

[Acer Saccharum]

I like a well-made gun, no matter what "grade" it may be. You will find 18th century pieces that were slapped together, with rough inlets and mis-shapen stocks, and more. On other examples, you will find fabulous craftsmanship and design. These guns were made for a market with a wide variety of income levels.

The architecture is the most important element in my manner of working. Then comes the mechanics where touch hole, lock and trigger location and function must be top notch. After that, decoration, only if the gun wants it. I like a pleasing gun, but it doesn't need to be fancy.

If your skills are limited, do the best job you can. If you want a fully carved and engraved Kentucky, but don't have the skills yet, work toward that goal with practice pieces. Skills don't just happen. Drawing, carving, engraving, inletting, stock shaping, etc, are all skills that are built one project at a time.

[rich pierce]

There's a lot of variance on originals. We are blessed with barrels dimensioned to 0.005" or better for example. We'd have to deliberately cob up a barrel to have it approximate many original early rifles. On the other hand I've been surprised sometimes to see things like the inner, inletted portion of a original trigger guard carefully filed. So there are no hard and fast rules for original work.  I have a rather plain original Germanic smoothbore with beautifully finished iron guard, buttplate, and sideplate. A plain original fullstock percussion rifle I have has clean lines but non-showing metal surfaces all show file marks.

What I do not like to see are as cast flintlocks, browned or aged with that pebbly finish and casting parting lines.

[BOB HILL]

Many excellent points have been brought up here. A fine gun is a fine gun. Everything else is just icing on the cake. They should all have a well built gun with good form under any embellishments. A plain gun is no excuse for poor form. Some of the most beautiful pieces I've ever seen were not engraved and not carved, but rested on excellent form and fine workmanship. How many times have you been at a gun show and heard the unknowing carry on about a poorly built, embellished gun while an excecellent plain example right next to it never got a second look?  You see it with other work as well. Look at knife makers. So many beginners want to build a damascus knife when they first start out, without first learning how to build a fine knife with good form and balance. I apologize for rambling on. Form and grace is important in any work.   Bob

[PPatch]

"Craftsmanship" says it pretty well I believe. Learn and understand the craft and skill underlying what you make. The basic attribute of a well crafted muzzleloader are its architecture and mechanical functioning (including safety). Decoration is icing on the cake, if done well, otherwise leave it off. As several have mentioned a well crafted piece will stand on its own merit.

dave

[DBoone]

Icing on a bad cake is still a "bad cake".  A good cake doesn't necessarily need icing. 

I have seen many original rifles over the years when doing restoration that, from a distance, looked absolutely beautiful and perfect.  But the closer they got the more crude they appeared by "today's standards".  I agree with what George Shumway said many years ago at a CLA show........."today's guns are overdone."

I always use the common claw hammer for an analogy.  The head doesn't have to be engraved and handle doesn't need to be carved or have a nail box at the end.... to be a good claw hammer.  Weight, balance, quality of materials & construction... and "feel" are what's important.  The "lines" of a gun are what I look for first.  If the lines aren't right the rest of it will make no difference.  Well said (above) by my friend, Bob Hill.

[Waksupi]

The guns that today's experienced builders are making, generally surpass the workmanship of the old builders. Examine the old builders work closely, you will see a lot of things that were rather crude, but still artistic overall.
I often bemoan the fact that contemporary builders ARE doing it too well, if they wish to truly duplicate the old guns. I'm currently restocking a 200 year old rifle for a client, and have had to back off considerably to do it so it will look right, and not like a modern builder's hand.

[flehto]

There seems to be 2 standards being discussed in this post....original rifles and their  mediocre workmanship and the modern  attempts at  perfection and those guns produced by less skilled builders that are comparable to the guns of yore.

I think the quality of workmanship and artistry of the guns of yore  VS the modern attempts at perfection  is dependent on the cost, market and usage.

Most of the guns of yore were more or less "tools" and due to different priorities of functionality and affordability, the aesthetics and nit picking details weren't that important. Many of the early guns were used daily or were w/in reach for various reasons.

Modern custom guns are built by makers w/ varying skill levels as displayed on the TOW's consignment sales and those offered in various sales venues are sold to somewhat unknowing buyers. Many of these guns would be categorized  as mediocre in workmanship and therefore akin to some of the work of the gunsmiths of your......but there is a difference. Most of the gunsmiths of yore intentionally built guns of this quality whereas the modern builders w/ less than adequate skills, did the best they could do.

If the highly skilled fulltime or hobbyists builders of today produced work in the mediocre category of quality as to what the makers of yore made, their work would be labeled  "sloppy" or lousy and their business would suffer. Today's  buyers have a modern mindset that  can only tolerate top notch workmanship for the high prices they pay. This segment of the market is very competitive .

Sold a Bucks County LR to a buyer and after his inspection, called me to say he was returning the LR.   After asking why....his reply was that the carving on both sides of the wrist wasn't exactly the same.  Told him that the carving was intentionally made that way and that's how many originals were made. He said Ok, he'll keep it, but 2 weeks later I saw the LR for sale. This is the modern mindset.

Again I argue that "back then" or presently, the quality of workmanship varies according to usage, cost and today especially, if the buyer judges the workmanship w/ a "modern mindset"......Fred





   

[Nordnecker]

I'm going out on a limb here in that I think many of you longrifle enthusiasts probably appreciate all sorts of 18th century items and would relish the chance to examine ANY "attic condition" artifact.
Last year, I had the privalege of examining a Queen Ann secretary (desk) that belonged to a friend who had passed away. He had shown me the piece while he was alive but I did not take the time to really study it untill he was gone.
The desk had been cleaned out in preparation for a move. All the drawers were out and it was empty so I could really see what was what, and measure and photograph it as long as I wanted.

I have no formal education in art history, but have studied furniture for many years. Books and museums offer glimpses, but "hands on" study is not often an option. That is what made this opportunity special.

The secretary was built out of american black walnut with yellow pine as secondary wood. The dovetails were crisp and neat. The finish had never been rejuvenated. Ink had spilled and stained some of the interior drawers. The top moulding was impressivly detailed. The brasses were mostly intact. The pigeonholes were elegantly spaced, etc. and so on.

But the thing that really put a smile on my face was the tool marks that were still very evident on this piece of high end furniture. It was the lack of refinement that I found so appealing. One little compartment that pulled out to reveal a hidden bank of drawers was clearly "finished" with nothing more than a toothing plane. It was fitted so perfectly into it's hiding place that any further refinement of the surface would have only resulted in a poorer fit. Another thing that I liked was, apparently, the person who built it mistakenly morticed the hinges of a small door into the wrong edge of the door. No attempt was made to cover this mistake.

I could add more to this list of imperfections, but I'm running out of time. It is this kind of workmanship that truely stirs my senses, not mirror smooth, blemish free, faultless stuff.

[Long John]

Capgun,

It all depends on what your objectives are, both now and in ages past.

There are original guns that are masterworks of the gun-makers' craft.  There are also original guns that are poorly designed and poorly executed.  In the first case the gun was made by some one who was not only trained in the craft but had a measure of God-given talent that allowed the maker to leave behind and exceptional product.  In the second case the maker might have been poorly trained, in a pinch for money and skimping where ever he could or, perhaps, was lacking in the talent category.  We don't know which - all we have is the product of his hand.

Since I build for the sake of building, not to put food on the table, I always strive to do the best I can.  Like Dave and Acer I strive to make the best gun I can, whatever it is, whether a simple basic gun or a more challenging project.  I take to heart something Jerry Huddleston said to me - I now always try to do what I don't believe I can do.  That way I grow and the project is a trill.  But, I don't have to finish on a schedule to keep the mortgage paid and if I screw-up I can write it off as a learning experience.  My objective is to have fun building something of beauty and finesse.

What ever you choose to build, build it so that you are proud of the product of your craft and pleased to have you name on it.

Best Regards,

JMC
John Cholin