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

[Don Getz]

There are some early  (1950's, 60's) contemporary gunbuilders that got this super-gun mentality going, or striving to do
it better.  I think Earl Lanning was very influential in shaping the thinking of Wallace Gusler, John Bivins, Jim Chambers,
and probably others.    About the same time, up in Maryland Carl Pippert was doing the same thing, and was influencing
George Stanford, Bob Ditchburn, Rudy Bahr, and others.  I don't know when Jack Haugh got started, but, he fall's right in
with this group.   I'm sure John Bivins was very influential in the work of Mark Silver and Monte Mandarino, and a little known guy by the name of Joe Scorsone.  Joe ran the stock machine shaping those Bicentennial stock for Bivins, but it
also rubbed off on him, and I have seen some great guns by Joe.  Most of these guys were "copyists", or trying to copy
old guns, but do it better.  John Bivins, being a super artist, went beyond that, and created some superbly carved guns,
much in the european style, but applied to american longrifles.  All of these builders kind of raised the standard for future
gunbuilders.  Today we have many guys who do those flawless guns, mainly because of the standards set by a few early individuals..........Don

[Mike Brooks]

..competiton,war effort,hostile indians,keeping food on the table,making enough to pay on thier land... 

HA! that's just what I'm doing today!

[LynnC]

And your Pretty Darn Productive, Arn't you Mike!

[northmn]

I have not seen anyone comment on the social economics of the time.  First we patterend a lot of our economics on the European guild system.  Some of it is a carry over into modern trades.  First a "master" was a successful businessman tradesman with an established shop and customer base.  An apprentice was typically a 14 year old or so taken on for seven years to learn the trade, BOTH skills and the business.  We now have that magical number of 21 years for a responsible adult, which goes back to this time.  A journeyman got his name from the notion that at the age of 21 he was to journey to study other masters and also to find a place to set up shop.  For the long rifle to have become what it was you needed both people that wanted to buy them and people that made them.  It really does not matter about the differences in certain aspects of the end product, as the masters  built to satisfy a customer base, as do modern builders.  They build to the expectations of the customer base whcih has chamnged with the times.  We pretty much today mimic what was built back then, which is a way of preserving what they did.  You still see the use of roccoco or barouque art form in use. I have yet to see a John Deere A engraved on a reproduction.  I stressed both skills and business because I am sure back then as today there were those that survived due to their business ability in spite of skills and those who had the skills but may have had to work for someone else due to lack of those skills.  Todays differences in the finished product have little to do with the hardships of technology back then as they satisfied a customer base and many of those today want to do the same, even if they are their own customer.

DP 

[Stophel]

. But today people expect more....

Dan

But they don't want to/can't pay more.  I couldn't charge for what REALLY goes into making a rifle as it is.

You're not going to get $75,000 British-shotgun-quality for $1500!!!

[Dphariss]

There are some early  (1950's, 60's) contemporary gunbuilders that got this super-gun mentality going, or striving to do
it better.  I think Earl Lanning was very influential in shaping the thinking of Wallace Gusler, John Bivins, Jim Chambers,
and probably others.    About the same time, up in Maryland Carl Pippert was doing the same thing, and was influencing
George Stanford, Bob Ditchburn, Rudy Bahr, and others.  I don't know when Jack Haugh got started, but, he fall's right in
with this group.   I'm sure John Bivins was very influential in the work of Mark Silver and Monte Mandarino, and a little known guy by the name of Joe Scorsone.  Joe ran the stock machine shaping those Bicentennial stock for Bivins, but it
also rubbed off on him, and I have seen some great guns by Joe.  Most of these guys were "copyists", or trying to copy
old guns, but do it better.  John Bivins, being a super artist, went beyond that, and created some superbly carved guns,
much in the european style, but applied to american longrifles.  All of these builders kind of raised the standard for future
gunbuilders.  Today we have many guys who do those flawless guns, mainly because of the standards set by a few early individuals..........Don

Or they did not want to make stuff like the Connestoga Rifle Works used to make. Or some of the blacksmith made/repaired guns out there.
Some people tend to have a perfectionist streak. They are compelled to make good quality stuff.
They cannot make junk. So is striving to do nice work wrong? Personally I like to take some pride in my work.
There is a JP Beck in the Cody museum that has a very nicely finished *patchbox cavity*. Its scraped smooth and true, better than the exterior of the "scraped finish" modern guns I see. I was REALLY surprised it was done that well. I expected some chisel marks.
Now if he could make the PB cavity nice and smooth why would he make a poor finish on the exterior of the stock? He didn't.
The rest of the gun is pretty darned nice even with wear and tear and a lousy replacement lock.
People can choose to make anything they want. But when looking at original guns we must also look at them in context.
Who was it made for? When was it made? War? Economic "panic"??
Sam Hawken stated that at the time of the rush to Oregon, for example, they could not make enough guns for the demand.
So one might assume that some lower quality guns were made. Should I then make a low quality gun just because someone else did?
Yes cheap, poorly fitted, ugly guns were made but I do not have to emulate them to be "HC".

Dan

[Dphariss]

. But today people expect more....

Dan

But they don't want to/can't pay more.  I couldn't charge for what REALLY goes into making a rifle as it is.

You're not going to get $75,000 British-shotgun-quality for $1500!!!

I understand this completely.
I did some lapping/polishing on a Deputy Sheriff's Sig 1911 2-3 weeks ago. I should have charged 100-150 bucks. I charged $30. You know why.... But it works now.
In the real world a gunsmith should charge $50+ an hour. But few can.

Dan

[northmn]

I did some lapping/polishing on a Deputy Sheriff's Sig 1911 2-3 weeks ago. I should have charged 100-150 bucks. I charged $30. You know why.... But it works now.
In the real world a gunsmith should charge $50+ an hour. But few can.

Dan
[/quote]

That is a good example.   We have more than one Colorado trained gunsmith living in my area.  I do not know of any really making a living at gunsmithing or guns.  Modern gunsmiths that do well establish a name in a certain field, such as Stan Baker and his shotgun work.  One of the individuals made a rifle for a guide in trade for an elk hunt.  Sounds great but he is not in business as a gunsmith but works as a welder.  A while back on a similar discussion, Barbie mentioned that Jim Chambers had to establish the "Name" which came in part from the Foxfire feature.  Whether an unknowns work is as good or not, a Cahmbers rifle will bring more $$$.  The old "masters" had the same issues.  There is also the economic term of the "point of diminishing returns"  which means that at a certain point, an activity will not occur due to the costs of going to extra work not equaling the extra income.  Another point is that of utility.  I did not finish my last gun to the point I would one I would take to a shoot to show off.  It was made to beat around in the brush and a fancier finish would get beat up anyway.  Final finish, which is labor intensive, is very heavily influenced by the point of diminishing returns.

DP

[Mike Brooks]

I do not know of any really making a living at gunsmithing or guns.

I could name a few that frequent this board.

[northmn]

I meant locally in my immediate area Mike and should have stated that.  Some are making a living at it I know.  Some even do so making muzzle loaders such as fowlers.

DP

[flintriflesmith]

...  A journeyman got his name from the notion that at the age of 21 he was to journey to study other masters and also to find a place to set up shop.  ...
DP 

Actually the term journeyman comes from the French and means "day man" -- someone who works for wages. I can see where the journeying about sounds like a logical origin for the term but it is not historically correct.

O.E. Dictionary for journeyman:
1. One who, having served his apprenticeship to a handicraft or trade, is qualified to work at it for days' wages; a mechanic who has served his apprenticeship or learned a trade or handicraft, and works at it not on his own account but as the servant or employee of another; a qualified mechanic or artisan who works for another. Distinguished on one side from apprentice, on the other from master.

 2. a. One who is not a ‘master’ of his trade or business.    b. One who drudges for another; a hireling, one hired to do work for another.


Skilled labor was in very short supply in most of colonial America and masters often advertised that they wanted to hire journeymen and "take on" apprentices. Other common ads were for newly established businesses or new locations. Tradesmen were much more mobile than you might at first expect---moving where they saw opportunity.


Gary

[roundball]

"...and works at it not on his own account but as the servant or employee of another..."
"...One who drudges for another..."

You got it all wrong.......that's the definition of a Husband !
 

[jerrywh]

I had my own businesses for 35 years. I retired from that in 1997.  I now work about four hours a day making guns and engraving. I earn about 4 times what I did when I was in business. I turn down about $50,000 a year in jobs that I don't like or have no time for.
  I personally know a half dozen guys making very good money making guns. None of them make ordinary guns. The prices run from $15,000 low up to $350,000.00 on the high side.
   The secret is this, You can't compete with Thompson center, CVA, Cabellas or Pedersoli. Millionaires don't want common guns. They want something nobody else has and probably can't get.
  I'm not bragging , I just want you guys to know it's out there if you build the right stuff.
  I have only made one modern gun in my life. Modern = 1874 sharps-45-110 All the rest were flintlocks. but one percussion.  Sadly, longrifles don't pay very good.
   PS-- exagerated guns bring exagerated prices.

[northmn]

Flintriflesmith I think you will find that the basis for some of these terms have more than one possible modern derivation.  I point out yours is French.  That being said, the Journeyman was in fact expected to work for wages for other masters to be able to save up and start his own shop.  So I will agree that I should have included that point upon rereading my post so I was in error.   In those days it was not uncommon for a man to marry in his thirties as it took time to get established.   It is still pretty much that way today in the skilled trades in that the "masters" own the business.  Those like Mike Brooks that are making a living building and repairing guns are also businessmen.  My point with the local gunsmith graduates is that they lack that business ability to maintain their own shops.  For one thing, living in my area would make it a challenge alone.  Michael Hayes has built several guns for Track of the Wolf and lives in my area,  he does not depend upon local trade and has rarely appeared at any matches and did not shoot that I know of.  I believe his hobby at one time was antique motorcylces, guns were work.  Did not know him personally but knew where he lived.
My point is that the original "masters" were business men.  They were not starry eyed artists.  Many had Jerry's philosophy that to make money you have to cater to those that have money.  While they likely had pride in their skills and had standards,  the common conception of them being slightly crotchety perfectionists is likely far from the truth in many cases. You made good enough so you can move on and make more money.  Good enough in many cases was pretty impressive to meet the customer standards and establish their base but it was still good enough. 

DP

[LynnC]

Think about it this way - It's 1787 - Does the Quality of your hand made rifle fit in with the quality of your hand made home and Everything In It?

Your home from the foundation blocks to the shakes on the roof - Hand Made

All the furniture - Hand Made

Your rifle might be among the finest ofthe Hand Made things you own!

Just another perspective to consider.............................Lynn

[rich pierce]

Regarding apprenticeships and masters and journeymen, in many cases, families of gunsmiths intermarried.  Thus roles and relationships were often more complex than "apprentice, journeyman and master".  The guild system in Europe was not designed for colonial circumstances, but was applied to an extent in organized communities such as Christians Spring for example, where there was a designated gunshop, a master, apprentices, journeymen, etc.  Even in that early era we had a rapidly expanding population, a rapidly expanding frontier, and a need for arms and arms maintenance that probably exceeded (per capita) what was needed in Europe.  We  tend to think of colonial gunsmiths as gun-builders when in fact a substantial amount of their work was gun repair work and repair and making of other items as needed in their communities.  The craft and business of gunsmithing was far less regulated here than Europe.  After the War of 1812 anybody trained to make and repair guns could move to the latest developing settlements (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, Michigan, etc) and quickly become a "master" if being a master meant setting up shop and operating independently. Many gunsmiths were also farmers, blacksmiths, etc and some left gunsmithing for farming, finding it more lucrative.  I believe Andrew Verner (we think of him as a master, surely, in his command of the art and mystery of the longrifle) moved on to farming.

[bryanbrown]

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

May I suggest ESPINGARDA PERFYTA OR THE PERFECT GUN (1718)  ?  A wonderful book in English and  Portugese by Gunsmith Brothers. It was actually banned in England and France since it violated guild rules by giving out to many  "trade secrets".  Some of the plates can be seen here http://www.gunsmithy.com/shoppe.html

[jerrywh]

We are living in a fantacy. The bank isn't, neither is the utility co.  The only thing I envy about the 18th century gunmakers is they never had income tax.

[flintriflesmith]

Flintriflesmith I think you will find that the basis for some of these terms have more than one possible modern derivation.  I point out yours is French.  

northmn,

The origin of journeyman as coming from the French language is not "mine." The definitions I quoted/posted are from the Oxford English Dictionary and that is generally the recognized source of the origins vituually all the Englich language. The EOD traces the use of journeyman (in English) back to the 1460s.

In my 20 years at the CWF Gunsmith Shop I heard the "travel" definition over and over --- too often from other museum interpretations or school teachers. No matter how many times it is repeated that modern definition does not change the actual origin of the word or its meaning in the 18th century.

I did not comment on any of your other remarks --- only your explaination of the origin of the term journeyman which was: "A journeyman got his name from the notion that at the age of 21 he was to journey to study other masters and also to find a place to set up shop."

Gary

[northmn]

Flintriflesmith, I do not know where the source came from on the definition of journeyman.  I think it may have been taught in one of my IA classes, but I am not determined to prove I am right and you are wrong as I think you likely are correct.  A journeyman craftsman in most cases could not afford to "study" other masters and had to work for them and get enough money put away to get his start.  Even if the jouneyman married the daughter of the master as some claimed was common, he still had to work for wages until the master craftsman retired and could leave him the shop.  As to the viability of the trades, one problem was a lack of currency in the colonial days so that payment was not always in cash.  At least one did not starve as a farmer, nor do I think working at a trade from sunup till sundown was all that great a way to make a living either.  I enjoy building rifles, but I would not want to do so for a living and got burnt out when I started building for others.  To me it can become tedious.

DP

[George F.]

Regarding apprenticeships and masters and journeymen, in many cases, families of gunsmiths intermarried.  Thus roles and relationships were often more complex than "apprentice, journeyman and master".  The guild system in Europe was not designed for colonial circumstances, but was applied to an extent in organized communities such as Christians Spring for example, where there was a designated gunshop, a master, apprentices, journeymen, etc.  Even in that early era we had a rapidly expanding population, a rapidly expanding frontier, and a need for arms and arms maintenance that probably exceeded (per capita) what was needed in Europe.  We  tend to think of colonial gunsmiths as gun-builders when in fact a substantial amount of their work was gun repair work and repair and making of other items as needed in their communities.  The craft and business of gunsmithing was far less regulated here than Europe.  After the War of 1812 anybody trained to make and repair guns could move to the latest developing settlements (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, Michigan, etc) and quickly become a "master" if being a master meant setting up shop and operating independently. Many gunsmiths were also farmers, blacksmiths, etc and some left gunsmithing for farming, finding it more lucrative.  I believe Andrew Verner (we think of him as a master, surely, in his command of the art and mystery of the longrifle) moved on to farming.

 Let's not forget, no matter how much skill a gunsmith had, he always had to make a living. One of my favorite makers was George Eister, who gave up the trade , because he made more money farming!   ...Geo.

[T*O*F]

George Eister, who gave up the trade , because he made more money farming!

Farming is a summer job.  They needed something to do in the winter to supplement their meager income.

[northmn]

George Eister, who gave up the trade , because he made more money farming!

Farming is a summer job.  They needed something to do in the winter to supplement their meager income.

Likely a very good point also.  Used to see a lot of farmers log in the winter in my neck of the woods before operations got so large.  Due to the labor intensiveness of any activities back then summer may have been a poor time for business also as everyone was too busy.  The so called Golden age of gun building was also a time of more intense competition where you see more elaborate guns built.  It was also a time when the more efficient production methods were starting to show.  After the Revolutionary war many craftsmen came over from the old countrys and brought production techniques with them.  Fur trade guns by makers such as Derringer were starting to show, which were much less expensive than many of the "custom" guns.  Consider that the fur trade was a large market as was the military. 

DP

[rich pierce]

This is getting way off topic but I like a woodstove discussion.  No doubt if a farmer could pick up some extra money with the 4-6 extra hours available to him in winter, he'd do it.  Whether it was worthwhile for him to build rifles is the question.  A gunsmith could also make money repairing guns, tools, sharpening things, etc.



Not to distract further but farming was never a summer job for me growing up on a dairy farm.  I think we forget most farms had animals and were not specialized wheat farms etc.  Cows to milk every day, animals to feed, manure to toss, wood to cut, etc.  There were extra hours in the winter, 10 AM-4 PM, then time to milk again.  It was a good time to work on machinery (tools) in prep for spring planting.

[JTR]

Well this thread has twisted and turned from the original question, but that’s okay, and is still interesting reading.

As pointed out, the gunsmiths did do more than just make guns. Of the existing journals, all have many entries for repairing or replacing locks, wiping sticks, mending stocks, freshing barrels, etc, plus some have entries for making or repairing household or farm equipment. And generally these other entries far out number those for actually making a gun, so obviously gun making wasn’t their only means of income.

George points out that G. Eister dumped gun making in favor of farming, yet existing Eister guns show that he made some dropdead gorgeous rifles. Was he out classed by other makers, overpriced for his clientele, or did he quit for physical reasons like deteriorating eyesight or some other such reason? Maybe at this point we can only wonder. 

John