Gunstocker mentality

[n stephenson]

In the post about the Beck carving , Mike Brooks , made a comment to the effect that today , we may be too fanatical about perfection. I agree %100 . Years ago I was at Friendship , talking with a famous gunbuilder. He gave me many tips and tricks. I still talk to him every week on the phone, he isn't a forum member , but most everyone here knows him. In our first conversation he made a statement to me , that I still think about often , especially when viewing some posts from time to time. He asked me what type of work I did , I told him I had been doing , tool and die , mold makers type work for about 20 years. He said " there`s your problem"  to which I said "what"?  . He told me I was trying to approach 18th century gunbuilding with a 20th century machinist`s mentality instead of a gunstocker`s mentality. I asked what he meant , and he said" you are making it over complicated , by trying for "too much" perfection"  He said they built by " look and feel" not by micrometer measurements. I realize , that people have different tastes and parts are sky high , so people are reluctant to actually build guns like the old ones. I see people build stunningly beautiful Bench copies of famous original rifles , but they "fix" all the blemishes , and end up with a rifle that resembles the original but looks more at home in the sporting goods section at Walmart. I am NOT writing this to tell people to do  crumby work!!! It`s just that when you are struggling to do something on one of these pieces , it is very easy to over think things , you are probably struggling to get their results , because you aren't t, using their tools or methods. I love tools as much as the next guy, but I have seen people show elaborate set ups for tasks like barrel inletting , etc. When I`m thinking , I could hand inlet 5 barrels in the time it took you to build that jig. I realize old habits die hard , but , these days I seldomly ever use any of my machinist tools other than a 24 inch steel scale. I don`t write this to condemn anyone`s methods , just to make people rethink the approach. The only part of old time gunbuilding that is complicated , is the way we sometimes look at it. JMHO  Nate

[P.W.Berkuta]

Yup -- just look at Hacker Martin's work -- they did not call him "hacker" for nothing !

[Cody Tetachuk]

I don't know that any of us actually KNOW what period guns looked like right off the bench. I think it was Mike that mentioned a Beck with an uneven background in the same thread but what we see is what it looks like AFTER 200+ years of "softening". What did it REALLY look like when the customer first received it?. How can we know?. Even when viewing original, unfired european guns in museums, often from royalty collections, with little to no handling, did the surfaces change somewhat just by the rigours of father time?. Many custom rifles today are built for and bought by people to hang on the wall or perhaps shoot at a shooting range. They want them to look perfect. A showpiece. In the 18th, early 19th century they were built for and purchased as tools to be used in whatever conditions necessary and had to be as affordable as possible. When I was building i always strived for perfection. never even came close but that was my goal. It pushed me to improve. I am in awe at some of the crisp, clean work being produced and very much appreciate what it takes to turn out such quality. However, I also recognize that, at least to my eye, it loses something when it's "too" perfect. My view of perfection has changed greatly as I age as have my tastes. If/when I get back to building, I will have different goals than I did when I quit.

[Ky-Flinter]

Yup -- just look at Hacker Martin's work -- they did not call him "hacker" for nothing !

Mr. Martin was not a "hacker".  His earlier work was very good.  But he kept building into his aged years, maybe until he died.  I don't know.  But he was still building after his eye sight and manual dexterity was used up.  The later guns are pretty rough, but they are genuine.

-Ron

[Mike Brooks]

Gunstocker mentality = not smart enough to do anything else.....

[rich pierce]

Maybe tangential to this discussion, most of us started with modern guns that were mass produced and roughly oblong on cross section and mostly pretty fat. It’s hard to get that out of our heads. Also thinking about sculpting not “machining” when gun stocking can be challenging. When I would take a gun to Chuck Dixon when I was first getting started he would run his hands all over it, hardly looking at it while talking to me.

I apply that now when I build. Roll the wrist and forearm in my hand. It shows square or flat better than light.

[Mike Brooks]

Yep, touch is very important as is shadow. I keep a swing arm lamp going all the time to cast shadows on the stock, gives me a good idea of the actual shape. I also will take the gun outside in full daylight to look at it as well.

[FlintFan]

Best advice I ever received when I starting out gun building many years ago,  "put down the micrometer and just build the @!*% gun."

That advice has always rung true when I find myself overthinking something during a build. The best course is usually the simplest, least technical path. 

[Joe S.]

Seems to me if you strive for perfection and then don't hit the mark your work is going to be pretty darn good.Now finding the happy medium between time spent seeking the first and settling for the second is the key.

[DFHicks]

 Ky-Flinter _
Mr. Martin was not a "hacker".  His earlier work was very good.  But he kept building into his aged years, maybe until he died.  I don't know.  But he was still building after his eye sight and manual dexterity was used up.  The later guns are pretty rough, but they are genuine.

-Ron
****************************************************************************************

I totally agree with the above.  I have a flint pistol Hacker made for me in June, 1969.  He passed away at age 75 the next May.  As I have recounted before I spent six days with him.  The pistol was $150.00 and no charge for room and board.  The pistol is "pretty rough" but the correct lines and contours are there.  Hold it out at arm's length and see how the lock area should be done.  Being from well east of the mountains in Virginia I'd never seen an original rifle or pistol.  Although it isn't particularly valuable, it is one of my prized possessions.
Greg

[n stephenson]

I don't know that any of us actually KNOW what period guns looked like right off the bench. I think it was Mike that mentioned a Beck with an uneven background in the same thread but what we see is what it looks like AFTER 200+ years of "softening". What did it REALLY look like when the customer first received it?. How can we know?. Even when viewing original, unfired european guns in museums, often from royalty collections, with little to no handling, did the surfaces change somewhat just by the rigours of father time?. Many custom rifles today are built for and bought by people to hang on the wall or perhaps shoot at a shooting range. They want them to look perfect. A showpiece. In the 18th, early 19th century they were built for and purchased as tools to be used in whatever conditions necessary and had to be as affordable as possible. When I was building i always strived for perfection. never even came close but that was my goal. It pushed me to improve. I am in awe at some of the crisp, clean work being produced and very much appreciate what it takes to turn out such quality. However, I also recognize that, at least to my eye, it loses something when it's "too" perfect. My view of perfection has changed greatly as I age as have my tastes. If/when I get back to building, I will have different goals than I did when I quit.

Cody, Next time I get ready to post , I`ll let you do it for me !. You have stated what I was getting at , in a better way than I was able to express it .You made a great point , regarding the museum pieces of Europe, I have wondered  also about those , makes you wonder how much shrinkage has occurred. I too find that as I age ,I am able to appreciate many more styles and types of rifles than I did when I was younger.  Thanks Nate

[rich pierce]

Well, I think it varies, builder to builder and era to era.
Let’s talk about individual original rifles, starting early.

RCA 42 does not show much wear on wood or metal, has great architecture and decorative embellishment and seems very well finished.  So unless cleaned up a lot (beyond the cheekpiece patch) it looks pretty much like it did when new.  Today’s builder creating an identical piece, if it wasn’t based on an actual existing gun, would be lauded for architecture and carving, but likely questioned about the boring flat sideplate and flat boring brass box.  Plus the guard, made to conform to the stock, has the bow spur straightened and pointing like a pinky straight up.  Looks a little odd but I’m sure the maker didn’t sweat about it.

I’ve seen other originals where it seems the trigger pad was simply cut to length to fit the depth of the guard, without re-shaping.

We forget they were probably taking 2 weeks or less to build a gun.

[Stoner creek]

Yup -- just look at Hacker Martin's work -- they did not call him "hacker" for nothing !

Unfair, incorrect & not respectful statement sir!
I just acquired a Hacker Martin gun from the late 30s to early 40s. There is a whole lot of really good work that went into the piece, and he did it without the benefit of all of the good research material available to us today.
I am as proud to have this piece as any of my high end later contemporary pieces.
Martin spent 50+ years of his life dedicated to gun making. The “hack” references are inappropriate in my opinion.

[jerrywh]

There are all kinds of aspects to gun making and all kinds of clientele.  Some makers prefer to replicate originals. Some people just build plain marketable guns.  Some gun makers build just for fun and then there are the high end builders.  I think I have done all of them in my life time. 
  I had a dear friend that built the same gun pattern all his life for more than 50 years.  He wore his body out and died poor but at the same time he made a lot of people happy because they had a good hunting muzzle loading rifle.  I think he made over three hundred rifles and did a lot of repair work.   I could never do that because  of the boredom.  What keeps me going is the desire to learn something new and to create beauty even though it is not HC.  Believe me Melchoir Frotney was not HC in his day.
    A gun maker capable of near perfection can build an ordinary gun whenever he wants but the opposite is rarely true.  High art guns are no fun to hunt with but they will buy a lot of guns that are fun to hunt with and they are never boring to make because everyone is different.  That's my mentality.
 

[conquerordie]

It's our modern brains fighting 18th century reality. It's not just firearms, it's how we make knives, powderhorns, tomahawks, and just about every other 18th century item. We have the technology to make it better, we are wired nowadays to do that. In doing that we are not making what we set out to do. You might look at RCA so and so and make it to a high standard todays builders and buyers expect, but all you have done is made 21st century gun that resembles RCA so and so.
I'm just like everyone else here, but I don't kid myself that I'm making 18th century firearms because in reality I'm not.
Greg

[oldtravler61]

  What some forget to realize is that. Back then their tool's we're the latest an greatest.... If they had what we have now they would have used them....Also I personally don't believe in nocking another builder's abilities because I can't do what they can....Like everything the more experience the better the end result...well usually....me I'm still working on it...to each his own...Me I'd rather have a shooter than a looker...

[Pukka Bundook]

I think the opening post makes some  very valid points.  Also Greg above.
18th C tool kits didn't possess micrometers and such, and we will do a better job if we forget such things.  We don't want to produce a fleet of VW's all so perfect and the same, but neither do we want to make lash-ups intentionally either.
We may forget at times that the workmen of that age were undoubtedly more familiar with their minimal hand tools, and did not use them merely for recreation on weekends.  They used them every day to make a living, and became very good with them. However, if we look at many originals of private and ordnance arms, we will see things like (For instance) pins and wedges for barrel lugs that are not dead square across the stock.  It hasn't hurt the arm at all in the last few hundred years so we need not cause ourselves pain and worry in this area.

To me, the most important thing in building any arm of another age, is to "get inside" the mind of the original builders;
Was  he a Colonial gunsmith making guns as fast as he competently could?  If so, build accordingly.
Was the original maker working for a Germanic Count?  If so, go slow, deliberate and do it all well.
Was the original a Best British maker?  If so, go get yourself a 7 year apprenticeship! LOL!

I agree with the OP.   we see many fantastic rifles nowadays, but some are somehow irrelevant.  By that I mean they do not really represent what we are Trying to represent.  Same goes for life-like engraving. Some fantastic engraving nowadays, but it just doesn't belong on a gun from an earlier age.

Best,
Richard.

[Daryl]

Some people want to load their muzzle loaders as they perceive their ancestors did, loose, inaccurate loads - while others want to take out the very centre of the X ring.

Is there not room for both 'types' makers and shooters?

[wmrike]

I think the detail and precision of the current makers is a kind of homage to the smiths of centuries ago.  Much like a son saying to his father, "You taught me to do good work, to work to my ability."  If our guns today are "better," it's a natural evolution.

[Elnathan]

18th C tool kits didn't possess micrometers and such, and we will do a better job if we forget such things.  We don't want to produce a fleet of VW's all so perfect and the same, but neither do we want to make lash-ups intentionally either.
We may forget at times that the workmen of that age were undoubtedly more familiar with their minimal hand tools, and did not use them merely for recreation on weekends.  They used them every day to make a living, and became very good with them. However, if we look at many originals of private and ordnance arms, we will see things like (For instance) pins and wedges for barrel lugs that are not dead square across the stock.  It hasn't hurt the arm at all in the last few hundred years so we need not cause ourselves pain and worry in this area.

Case in point:

Relevant part is the minute or so of video between 00:30 and 01:30, where the host is talking about the accuracy that these Indian gunsmiths can achieve by sheer repetition.

[Ric27]

this is a interesting thread. A lot of valid points are maid. So here's my view, I see and handle a lot of Kentucky rifles both old and new while doing photography for the CLA and Muzzle Loader magazine among other clients. The level of workmanship in both categories is both good and not so good in both groups. Some of the rifles I see are frankly mindbogglingly (that is a word) appealing while many others are admirable and some with little going for them as things of beauty or works of art. So it looks like there are makers out there doing a lot of different things for wide variety buyers and some simply making the guns that appeal to themselves. One of my favorite quotes of one gunmaker about another is " he doesn't fuss about". That high prase at the time I heard it was attributed to John Bivins while discussing the work ethic of Hershel House. I would like to be more like Hershel in the fussing department but I seem to be an interminable fusser.

[Pukka Bundook]

Ric,

Your quote above re. Herschel's work reminds me of another  quote, on Contemporary Longrifles;
"Herschel avoids the pitfall of overdoing his work".
I must say, when I first saw this gentleman building a rifle, the feeling of relief and release to see him cutting dovetails for sights/lugs just by eye was a wonderful moment!   No messing about, whack whack,  and it's done, just like it used to be done.  It's the only way I have worked on such details, as it just seems right. 
At the same time, when we drill a stock for a pin by eye and it comes out in the right spot we get to smile more than if we used fine measuring techniques   :-) LOL!

[Daryl]

Much fault could be noted about that video, however it was informative as to the utter simplicity of the workshop.

Makes mine look a wee bit cluttered, to the untrained eye, that is.

[Curtis]

Great topic Nate! 

[jerrywh]

 All the original builders never had the same mind set. Much as we do today Seldom do two people ever think the same.  I'm sure the same differences of opinion were going on then. If they weren't , how would you account for the progression in firearms?  I often wonder how much criticism the man got who first made a brass patch box. Those brass patch boxes sure didn't look right on guns that were supposed to have the standard wooden ones or none at all.  Does anybody here know what caused the golden age of long rifles to come about?  After the revolution there was a over abundance of gunsmiths because the demand for firearms decreased a lot.
  As a result gunsmiths began to make fancier guns in order to try and keep in business and make a living.  So they added engraving more carving, inlays and made much higher quality firearms.
  Sound familiar?  Today we have a large degree of competition much as then. So some of us do the same thing. History repeats itself.