Exaggeration, and Barrel channels in antique rifles, all rolled into one.

[JTR]

Just my opinion, but I’m honestly surprised at the amount of criticism and/or lack of appreciation that these two threads have generated regarding the makers and construction of the original rifles. Or that anyone should be surprised that it’s certainly possible to build a better gun today.

It’s certainly true that Great guns are being made today, but before you guys thump your chests too mightily at your high accomplishments, let’s put things into a realistic context.

The old masters, or “so called” old masters as one guy likes to call them, were working generally between 1780 to about 1810, more or less, pick a date, but I’ll use 1795 as a happy medium.

At that date, George Washington was still President.

Electricity was still almost 80 years in the future. Thomas Edison hadn’t yet been born.

Steel, as mass produced by Bessemer, wouldn’t be invented for another 60 years.

The Appalachian Mountains  were pretty much the Western frontier.

Gunsmith shops at that time were generally small, the gunsmith and maybe one apprentice for the most part.
True, some were larger operations, Dickert and the others that did some government contracts had a larger work force, but for the general smith close to the frontier, I’ll stick to my first comment.

Ready made parts and supplies that were available at that time would include in the main, stock wood, locks and barrels. Some made their own locks, some made their own barrels, but in general these parts were available. Other parts could have been available, like trigger guards and butt plates, etc, but for the early guys that created the different styles or schools, I believe parts like those were cast in their shops.

So what does all this mean?
What does this have to do with a modern day maker?

Not much, because there’s not much point in going back to the past, but before you condemn the old guys for the way they did their work, try to build a gun under their circumstances and conditions.

I’m sure some of you are up to it, so let’s go.

But first, turn off your electricity. No overhead lights, no light bulbs of any sort, just a lamp of some sort and/or a window to illuminate your work space.

Throw out your power tools. No band saws, no drills, lathes, sanders, air compressors, etc, and no fair sending out your stock for someone to route out the barrel channel, ramrod groove and drill the hole, because he doesn’t have any electricity or power tools to do it either.

Go ahead and buy your lock and barrel ready made from a supplier east of the Appalachians, but forget buying the tang, the side plate, butt plate, trigger guard, trigger assembly, ramrod thimbles, sights, patchbox, inlays, bolts, screws, sand paper and store bought finishing products.

Throw out your razor sharp tool steel chisels, knives and gouges, and either forge them yourself or have your apprentice do it. Don’t have a forge, better get one.
Oh, and don’t forget to toss your modern steel files and rasps either.

For those of you that can engrave, toss out the GRS gravers, electric hones, adjustable angle graver sharpening devices, microscopes, magna-visors, etc, as well. Their invention is way off in the future.

Once you’ve tossed all your stuff and are ready to start building, complete the rifle in less than a month, or 6 months, or certainly less than a year, cause your gonna go broke if you don’t.

Oh, and you can’t copy, imitate, make in the likeness of, or in any way stand on the shoulders of any then current masters, because they’re your competition. So make up your own design. 

Shall I check back in a couple weeks to see pictures of all the wonderful rifles you’ve created?

So okay, enough already, I think you get the point.

John   

[rich pierce]

Those are good points but the majority of us adore and admire originals far beyond the credit we give to work by modern makers.  And plenty of us like good plain modern-made guns also.

There are relatively few modern makers who'd last a week working as a journeyman for Henry or Gonter or Dickert, I am sure.  And we'd be glad to lose the job because working at that pace, to that standard, would be a harrowing experience.

[northmn]

I now work in Quality Control.  Quality is defined as coformance to specifications.  A KIA built to specs is a quality car that gives the customer what he pays for.  A Cadilac not meeting specs does not and is not a quality car.  The old masters built their rifles to customer specs and made a quality product.  Many of those tody have different specs and have to produce a different product.  Its that simple.  I do not think that we condemn the old masters, as most of us respect them.  I think that many have put them on a pedestal that never existed.  In addition of the builders of today there is only a small percentage that are truly masters.  I do not claim to be, and build what I call influenced rifles.  My English rifle project is influenced by the English guns, it will not be of their craftsmanship and I do not try to make it to that level.  Beyers was an apprentice to Beck and then became a master in his own right.  We should look at ourselves in that fashion.  If one looks at the various "schools" one would have a hard time coming up with his own school.  The masters made the original designs, we pretty much copy them.  A few of the rifles made today are probably nicer than the old originals due to technology, but whats the issue?  As stated, different expectations or customer specifications if you will.

DP

[jerrywh]

There is a great misconception about the kind of tools some of the " Old Masters" had.  Most of them had drill presses, razor sharp chisels, grinding wheels and some power equipment. Power is power be it water, foot treadle, spring pole , Horse or whatever.  A lot of them had lathes. They also had one thing very few of us have today , that is a hands on master teacher.  They could buy almost anything we can buy today except portable power tools. In England there were steam engines in 1725 believe it or not. American gunsmiths had magnifying glasses although they were probably not headsets. In 1770 John Twigg had 12 lathes in his shop. There were microscopes in the 1600's Engravers today in Italy use the same basic tools they did in 1775.  A gravermax doesn't make you a master engraver, it's just faster.
   They never had Dave Race to inlet barrels but they had apprentices and bond slaves that did stuff full time. If you set in barrels for years you got real good at it and real fast. I have seen a blacksmith in Africa forge a flint hammer in about 10 minutes or less. The Belgian Damascus barrel makers could forge as many as 4 Damascus barrels a day with two men. They had the experience and hands on learning that we do not.
     The biggest difference is ,they made work guns, most of us don't. Lyman, CVA and remington make work guns.
   The "old masters" were not all masters, just a few of them. They couldn't walk on water. I appreciate the good ones and have no respect for the bad ones.  Some people now would make them gods. They were almost like us except most of them were more moral and honest.  It does not take a genius to hack out a crappy looking rifle with a hatchet.   They were not burdened wit ha 50% tax and government regulations. They got to keep what they earned.  That makes up for a lot of electric lights. In many ways we have more obstacles today than they did .    If this be blasphemy so be it, it’s reality.

[Bob Mac]

Jerry, I think you just answered a question I've had for quite awhile. I've often wondered how much of the originals were actually done by apprentices. Did they do the majority of the barrel inletting? How about the ramrod channel? Were a lot of the more mundane aspects assigned to apprentices? If so, any ideas what other jobs they did? Are Fred Miller and others handling the jobs of apprentice? Absolutely no offense meant by that statement. Just wondering.
Bob

[Dave Faletti]

Jerry.
Is there a good book out there that has illustrations or pics  of tools and equipment of that time? 

[Ken G]

I don't think the tools and shops represented in this book are what Jerry is talking about but it is interesting reading.   
Guns and Gunmaking Tools of Southern Appalachia
by John R. Irwin

[bigsky]

I wonder if over time we have changed the meaning of the word master.  Today we seem to refer to masters as those who were truly masters of their craft.  I suspect that the word originally meant that they were masters of their apprentices, indentured servants, etc.

[Mike R]

I wonder if over time we have changed the meaning of the word master.  Today we seem to refer to masters as those who were truly masters of their craft.  I suspect that the word originally meant that they were masters of their apprentices, indentured servants, etc.

No.  "Master" can be applied in several ways, but the Master we are talking about means what we think--a master of his art or craft--and did so then.

[Acer Saccharum]

The Firearms Engraver's Guild will have different parameters for master than the CLA, and Dixon's 'Master' different yet.

I hold the elders in much respect. I hold many modern builders in much respect. I am not confused by the differences. But it's hard to compare the old with the new when the world is such a different place than it was 200 yrs ago.

And somehow, the people are still the same.

Acer

[Levy]

If they hadn't done what they did back then, beautiful or not, then we wouldn't be inspired to do what we do today, beautiful or not.  There are always people who can set the bar higher for what is possible to build.  There is always someone who is more talented or has more time to spend.  We keep what we want of the past and throw the rest away.  The reason we have to research to find out details of times past is because they have been dropped from common knowledge.  Every bit of information that we re-discover about our longrifles is a tasty morsel to savour.  We all read this forum religiously, waiting for the next morsel to be served up.

James Levy  

[northwoodsdave]

John makes a good point about the lack of modern tools of the masters, but so does Jerry.  They had some great tools, though certainly different than what is commonly available today.

The lack of electricity is a huge factor.  Here in Northern Wisconsin, electification didn't spread beyond the cities until 1946!  The tool shop I'm working in was electrified "way back" in the Thirties, but only because it's owner installed a water wheel on the nearby White River and made his own.

The "old" tools that pretty much disappeared in cities early on lasted well into the Fifties around here.  People still used big saws to cut ice in winter for the iceboxes that still were necessary in summer in the more remote areas.  Hand tools were absolutely necessary, since unless you had a generator (usually military surplus WWII:  BIG and bulky) you didn't have power.

You could do some fine work with those tools, but it was not easy.  For years the main source of light in the workshop here was light from the forge. The cabin still has it's gas lamp hanging over the sink, so you could could cook and wash after sundown which, in this area, is around four PM in winter.

Yes, there were some surprisingly sophisticated tools around way back when, but the conditions they were used in were also often surprisingly primitive! Many local cabins still bear the marks of hand hewn logs and local stoneworkers, and many date back only to the twenties and thirties:  not as far back as you might imagine.

Northwoods Dave

 

[JTR]

Just to reset the course of my original post, I’m not talking about a large manufacture like Harpers Ferry or Henry who certainly had all sorts of powered tools, but specifically about the small shop maker closer to the 1795 frontier. Picture your shop with the restrictions I posed in the original post, plopped down in a town on the edge of the boonies. Master gunsmith you are, but civilization is a long way east.

I’ll concede that some certainly could have had water power available for a grinding wheel, but have yet to read any estates or wills that included lathes and drill presses. I’ll not say never though, just that from my limited research it seems far from common.

Whether Twigg or any other English or European shop had a steam engine or a dozen lathes is of little relevance here as it was a good distance away from frontier America.

I never said they didn’t have tools, just that you’d need to get tools common to the time, made of materials of the time.

As for the old masters being gods, walking on water, nope, never said that. Also never said all the guns made back then were great, and never said the ones made then are better than the ones made now.

What I was trying to do in the original post was to get you to put yourself back in time, to consider the tools and conditions you’d have to work with, and what you’d do to expediently make a gun.

So okay, I’ll give you David Rase for your barrel letting apprentice, but he has to do all the work by hand, but doubt he’ll work for room and board!

John

[Dphariss]

I think we have a problem here, I have not read all the posts. Right now I have a piece set on a 1x2 with epoxy and I am waiting final file and polish.
If you listen to Lynton McKenzie in his Beginning Engraving video he explains that the engraving, for example, was far lower quality on many 18th and 19th century guns than people would accept today.
It was not considered to be a big part of the gun, just something to fill empty space. Now customers are likely go over engraving with a magnifying glass to see if they got their moneys worth.
The "best quality" English guns from the late 19th and 20th centuries set the stage for this. Everyone today looks at the high end British guns and when they order a high end gun be it a Kentucky, a Shiloh Sharps or a custom bolt gun the expectations are higher.
Thus we have to do better work.
Has nothing to do with JP Beck or Melchior Fordney or their quality of work or their abilities.
Its the what people have come to expect from MODERN makers.
People who don't know the difference shoot TCs or Browning Mountain Rifles anyway.

Dan

[Leprechaun]

This is a great discussion with lots of interesting perspectives. While it's interesting, unfortunately, it totaly lacks relavence IMO. Here's an example of what I mean. Try this, tie you hands behind your back and brush your teeth with your foot. Then go to the table and eat a bowl of soup holding the spoon with a foot. How about typing a reponse with your feet then write an essay.....with your feet. $#@*, THAT'S HARD (at least for me). Why is it so hard?, because I've never had to do it so I didn't learn. I remember years ago watching a documentary of Thelidimide babies. These were people whose mother took the drug thelidimide while pregnant and their babies were born with defects, one of the more common was being born with no arms. They had a guy there that played the drums and was quite good.....with his feet. He could do pretty much anything we can do with hands, with his feet. Comb his hair, use eating utensiles, brush his teeth, write,  and so on. When asked how he was able to do all those things he simply said, "don't know any different". And so it is (IMO) compareing old time gunmakers to modern. They didn't miss electricity because they never even dreamed of it. They didn't know any different. There's a BIG difference between never haveing something and haveing something taken away. I doubt that a gunmaker 200 years ago had any tougher time building a gun that someone today. They just did what they did with what they knew. The hands on instruction would be a HUGE advantage over how most today learn. One more thing. I find it interesting that, as a general rule, people have often extolled the virtues of antique files and chisels claiming that "they just don't make them like they used to" but for the purposes of this thread, antique tools are now presumed to be inferior to modern ones???

[rich pierce]

This topic re-surfaces every 8 months to a year.  The same folks weigh in with the same perspectives.  Nothing wrong with consistency.

Maybe it would be fun to talk about what old-timey skills/techniques/shortcuts (your perepsctive will determine what you call it) we'd like to replicate.

I do intend to build a rifle with a planed/gouged/scraped round barrel channel for a swamped octagonal barrel.  I want to learn how to make it work (get good fit at sides and good bottoming etc w/o going through the pain of replicating flats with chisels).  It's for a "tribute gun" (not a bench copy since I don't have it here, but I have photos and drawings).  This will probably be my personal hunting rifle.  Big, plain and strong, based on an original a couple of us think was made for the Revolutionary War.

[Dphariss]

This is a great discussion with lots of interesting perspectives. While it's interesting, unfortunately, it totaly lacks relavence IMO. Here's an example of what I mean. Try this, tie you hands behind your back and brush your teeth with your foot. Then go to the table and eat a bowl of soup holding the spoon with a foot. How about typing a reponse with your feet then write an essay.....with your feet. $#@*, THAT'S HARD (at least for me). Why is it so hard?, because I've never had to do it so I didn't learn. I remember years ago watching a documentary of Thelidimide babies. These were people whose mother took the drug thelidimide while pregnant and their babies were born with defects, one of the more common was being born with no arms. They had a guy there that played the drums and was quite good.....with his feet. He could do pretty much anything we can do with hands, with his feet. Comb his hair, use eating utensiles, brush his teeth, write,  and so on. When asked how he was able to do all those things he simply said, "don't know any different". And so it is (IMO) compareing old time gunmakers to modern. They didn't miss electricity because they never even dreamed of it. They didn't know any different. There's a BIG difference between never haveing something and haveing something taken away. I doubt that a gunmaker 200 years ago had any tougher time building a gun that someone today. They just did what they did with what they knew. The hands on instruction would be a HUGE advantage over how most today learn. One more thing. I find it interesting that, as a general rule, people have often extolled the virtues of antique files and chisels claiming that "they just don't make them like they used to" but for the purposes of this thread, antique tools are now presumed to be inferior to modern ones???

The tools and electricity are not relevant.
The English were doing VERY good work well before the electric motor.
The American frontier, even America in general was lacking in really rich people wanting the buy guns. The high end English guns went to people with enough money to afford a 200-300 dollar gun in the 18th/19th century.
But as I pointed out even these were not engraved to the quality level of the better modern stuff.
Its not the tools, its not electricity, its not the gunsmith's superior skill, its the CUSTOMER and the GUNSMITH demanding/doing work to a STANDARD that did not really exist for the rank and file in the era of the ML firearm in America when, unlike Europe, very few guns were made for landed gentry, peers or members of the royal family.
The American shooter of 1820 did not want to pay 40 guineas for a shotgun. But today people expect more....

Dan

[Greg Field]

I live in Washington state, a place settled by European invaders long after the glory days of the longrifle. You don't see many J.P. Beck or Isaac Haines longrifles here, so in effort to try to get a sense of the originals, I have  bought a lot of books with photos of original rifles.

Based on this very limited experience, I would have to opine that very few to none of the American longrifles was built to the standards that a Jerry Huddleston (I have held several of his glorious rifles at various Cascade Mountain Man shows; judged on execution of craftsmanship, these guns are above reproach) and a few others expect of their own work. Based on the photos, most longrifles are extremely rustic in comparison. I would describe almost all of the originals I've seen (again, mostly in photos) as "folk art," which is far removed from "high art."

I don't mean to criticize anyone's approach to their gunmaking, but my observations (based, again, on the limitations of my circumstances) is that the approach typified by those who seek to emulate how the originals were done (most typified, IMO, by the current and former craftsmen of Colonial Williamsburg and individuals such as Eric Kettenburg) is truer to the original "art."

[Sean]

Just to reset the course of my original post, I’m not talking about a large manufacture like Harpers Ferry or Henry who certainly had all sorts of powered tools, but specifically about the small shop maker closer to the 1795 frontier. Picture your shop with the restrictions I posed in the original post, plopped down in a town on the edge of the boonies. Master gunsmith you are, but civilization is a long way east.

I’ll concede that some certainly could have had water power available for a grinding wheel, but have yet to read any estates or wills that included lathes and drill presses. I’ll not say never though, just that from my limited research it seems far from common.

Whether Twigg or any other English or European shop had a steam engine or a dozen lathes is of little relevance here as it was a good distance away from frontier America.

I never said they didn’t have tools, just that you’d need to get tools common to the time, made of materials of the time.

As for the old masters being gods, walking on water, nope, never said that. Also never said all the guns made back then were great, and never said the ones made then are better than the ones made now.

What I was trying to do in the original post was to get you to put yourself back in time, to consider the tools and conditions you’d have to work with, and what you’d do to expediently make a gun.

So okay, I’ll give you David Rase for your barrel letting apprentice, but he has to do all the work by hand, but doubt he’ll work for room and board!

John

John,

Interesting discussion and you have a lot of good points.  I have a couple of thoughts to add.

First, I would say that most of the people who are considered 'masters' today were not actually working on the frontier in 1795.  Lancaster, Lehigh and Berks Counties, Hagerstown, etc. were all far from frontier burbs at that time.  These were bustling communities with a complete marketplace with plenty of options to buy not only raw materials, but also finished goods.  There are plenty of citations for barrel makers and locksmiths.  Tools including files, gouges, chisels, etc could either made in their own shop or purchased from a variety of blacksmiths and whitesmiths in the community.  The idea that these gunsmith shops made everything from tools to parts is, I believe, a modern one.

Second, it seems to me that the way we look at history may have created some artificial divisions.  We have a tendency to want to categorize or pigeonhole things to make them easier to think about.  I think this has created an artificial division between the larger shops like Henry and the highly romanticized small artisan shops.  The reality is likely that this happened on a gradient and many people who are now considered masters worked on both ends of that gradient.  Dickert is an example of this in a temporal sense, but others dipped into both ends of the spectrum at the same time.  So called trade rifle smiths like Fordney and Deringer made guns for contracts, but also turned out finely made guns for eastern gentry.

Thirdly, a lot of the differences that we talk about between old and modern guns are a result of not only the modern market place, but also modern use.  I think any full time gunmaker can fully understand the 'get it out the door because the mortgages is due' feeling.  However, these guns are largely no longer tools.  They are collectibles and hobbies and the customers in that market are by and large much more picky.  While period longrifles may have had their barrel removed once or twice in their lifetime of use, many guys pull them out regularly.  Also their experience with modern machine made products makes them think that gouge marks file and grinding marks are 'sloppy'.  The reality is that today's guns and gunmakers have followed the marketplace just like they did then.

Sean

[engravertom]

One thing that bothers me, and I am not saying anyone here has said this, is an idea I have run into more than I like:

Rough and crude=authentic.

Sometimes it is true. What bothers me is when some may use that as an excuse for poor craftsmanship, and as an an attempt to get customers to prefer their work over better quality, and sometimes even more authentic, work out there in the market place.

I see this  some in the engraving world. In my line of work, customers expect better metal and wood finish, but often accept poorer engraving than was found on the 19th century guns I most often work on. On the other hand, you CAN find pretty poor work on some of the original guns.  MY desire is to emulate the BEST of that time period, not settle for the worst, or even the most "Common".

I do believe Lynton McKenzie was correct, but not everyone is as astute as some of his customers were. I see some VERY expensive guns with very poor to mediocre engraving on them. It amazes me. Apparently, many gunwriters/gunmakers/customers either don't know or don't care to evaluate what constitutes decent, let alone excellent engraving.

Oh well, some sour grapes here, I guess!

More to our point, In my limited studies, American Longrifle engraving was among the lower quality of 18th century engraving that I have observed. The better engravings I have seen ( in the US)were from silversmiths and printmakers. That is not to say that some wonderful work wasn't done on longrifles, but the norm was not that great. I admit though, that it sometimes takes a genius of a design effort to make sense of some of the patch box architecture, and get a good engraving design to fit! I very much respect those who did, and can do, that well.

To some up, I would agree with a poster on the other thread dealing with this topic. I encourage all of us to do and be the best we can be, whatever our approach is, and to respect and appreciate those who do things differently, while striving for excellence in their own way.

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder to a great degree practically speaking, but there IS an absolute out there. The difficulty is that most often "we see through a glass darkly".

Take care,

Tom

[JTR]

Perhaps I should have included this from my comment in the Exaggeration thread, when I started this thread.

"Not to degrade the guns being made today, because the best of them are beautiful and wonderfully made, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges.
While the guns might look basically the same, they're products of a completely different time period,
Using completely different technology,
Made for entirely different reasons,
For an entirely different clientele."

Wouldn't it be utterly amazing if makers of today couldn't surpass those made 225 years ago? But to my way of thinking, comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges.

I guess it's just me being a collector instead of a builder, that I find it a bit aggravating when someone posts pic of an old one, and some seem to delight in pointing out the flaws, and how much better guns are made today. But again, wouldn't it be amazing if they weren't?   

Personally I don't mind pointing out the flaws, how the barrel channels were unfinished or the less than stellar inletting, but I don't mind it, don't mind the chisel marks, don't mind the engraving slips or lack of to days overall finesse, but instead enjoy them and appreciate the old guns for what they are, from a time and history period long gone.
 
My intent with this thread was to try to get guys to look back to the time they were made, to the conditions of the time, and to reflect on what they might do differently to expediently build a gun without todays modern convinces.

Obviously I didn't convey my thoughts clearly enough.

John

[engravertom]

I thought you conveyed that message very well. Threads like this often take on a life of their own, however. We all start responding to various things that catch our notice, and the drift begins!

I appreciate your perspective, and I admit that the tendency to criticize is there, even in my self. Why do we do it? To justify ourselves? Maybe so. It can be a very complicated thing.

The way you evaluate the makers from that time period is how I try to evaluate engravings, especially when i don't know the engraver or the circumstances involved. Work done by a beginner, or by someone that has certain limiting circumstances affecting their work, gets a different evaluation thant work that was just done in a hurry. But even then, we don't always know the whole story. maybe they were under time pressure? maybe they were sick, injured, nearing the end of their career? maybe they were just trying to make a fast buck? maybe they are jaded? It is hard to know.

On the other hand, quality is what it is. Good or bad.

I can appreciate a little leaguer who may be slow on an absolute basis, but runs very hard, much more than a pro who is out of shape, and just strolls down to first on a ground ball in the infield. The pro is still running faster than the kid though.

Anyway, since this is my first time through such a thread here, I have enjoyed it.

Take care,

Tom

[Pete G.]

Personally I cannot work to the same level that some of the guys here can. I also believe that most 18th century guns were not made to that level either. I am satisfied that for the most part, my guns are authentic, but far from being considered crude. Economics drives the world, then as now. Any product has to be sold at a price. If the price is too much, the object does not sell. Time adds to the price. If a gunsmith could build 10 rifles a year he would make more money than if he only built 6, or the six would have to be sold at a higher price. Most of us do this for a hobby and can afford to spend time that could not possibly be justified if we were attempting to work as a profession. Last gun I sold was built at a profit of about $2.50/hr.

It is a hard lesson to learn, and I still haven't myself, but sometimes "good enough" really is good enough.

[Majorjoel]

To copy or imitate the work done by the 18th century gunsmiths is in a sense the greatest form of flattery and respect to those we  hold in high esteem. If you consider what artifacts from the 18th and early 19th century have survived to this day, you will find very slim pickins. The best longrifles were cherished and passed down through the generations. Their collecting was a "sport" of the upper classes even back then when the work was contemporary. Look at the few examples of PA\Kentucky rifles that were picked up off the battlefields of the Revolution and carried back to England. They were held and regarded highly by the ranking officers who even had them reproduced back then!  We have all seen the English examples in the books. I can only speak for myself when it comes to the feelings I have when gazeing upon original longrifles. I can mentally go back to another place and time to actually relive history.

[lew wetzel]

i think as we look at original rifles that what we see is a 200-250 yr old rifle....even if it were a highend gun for the time it got used....maybe not as much as a every day shooter....and its very intrequing to wonder what they looked like the day a customer came to pick up his new rifle....i think by far better rifles are being built now....but only to imagine the frontier gunsmith....busy from sun-up to sun down scratching a living building rifles not knowing or realizing these rifles would help  make this country and be admired centuries later...using what he knows and making most of his tools by hand...really hard to compare what the outcome would be trying to duplicate the way the old masters built rifles because we dont live in them times and yes we can duplicate the process but we cant duplicate the everyday fears and anxieties of what these men were going through and what drove them...competiton,war effort,hostile indians,keeping food on the table,making enough to pay on thier land...