Author Topic: Are Tool Marks Acceptable? (Read 6517 times)

Nhgrants · « **on:** February 12, 2019, 01:33:13 AM »

I have been using cabinet scrapers for fine shaping after planes, spokesman and rasps.
I find some tool marks left from the scrapers. I have removed these marks with fine sand paper.
Would 18th century gun makers have used scrapers for the final surfacing? Would some tool marks
Left acceptable on Gun made for a common person? Thanks

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2019, 01:38:38 AM »

Define common.

Nhgrants · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2019, 02:00:09 AM »

By common I mean working class. Today that person would buy a Mossberg to hunt with rather than
A very expensive gun.

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2019, 02:26:13 AM »

Within the context of American guns, you will find tool marks on ALL of them, from the plainest to the finest. Scraper marks, particularly around carving; file marks, especially on the barrel (draw file) and on the furnishings. There are enough pieces that have survived in exceptional condition to determine that the wood and metal finishes most typical to American work were not executed to the same degree of refinement as common European work, although there also you will find tool marks. There are many people who have made and continue to make modern interpretations of early American rifles that are infinitely more refined than anything that was EVER made in the 18th century. It's all good - there's a range for every taste.

Stophel · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2019, 02:26:37 AM »

I've seen scraper, file, and chisel marks on just about every old gun I've ever seen.

smart dog · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2019, 03:13:24 AM »

Hi,
This discussion has been hashed out many times on this forum. Use our search function above and search for "workman like manner" and "tool marks". You will come up with many posts.

dave

jerrywh · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2019, 10:27:38 AM »

Not on my guns. Some don't care and some actually like them.

rfd · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2019, 02:26:40 PM »

the only person that should care is you, the gun builder.

personally, i like "common" plain jane "working farmer" 18th century guns.

an honest gun with "character" that goes "bang" all the time, every time.

think of those tooling marks as "premeditated faux relicing".

to each their own, do whatever makes you happiest and not me or anyone else.

Jeff Durnell · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2019, 04:11:44 PM »

Well I haven't completed my first gun yet, but I've made a lot of bows and other things, mostly for myself but occasionally for others, and I like to ensure not a single tool mark is missed. I'll only do the best I'm capable of and want the end result to reflect that. The time and effort it takes getting the last tools marks out is minimal compared to everything else. Even if nobody but myself were going to see it, as is often the case, I'll do my best, or I won't bother, but that's just me.

On the other hand, I can understand when folks want to not only make a traditional weapon, but also craft it by traditional means.... or even just make it LOOK like it was. It's all good, and up to the individual.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2019, 04:41:37 PM »

I find tool marks interesting on hand made guns. They were present on the old guns and I believe for an honest gun today a certain amount is acceptable as well. An I believe some degree of tool marks are appropriate on all grades of guns, from inexpensive to high end. If you're going to use hand tools you're going to leave some marks. They do tend to leave some life in a gun and many times really warm up the piece. Especially scraper finished guns, leaves an entirely different finish than glossy fine sand paper finish.

Now, on to "Working man's gun". Think about it ….if you don't work you don't have a gun. Everybody works so they can purchase a gun, both yesterday and today. Just depends on how much you want to spend. It's a choice, not a station in life. You save your money and you can have any gun you want. If you need instant gratification and don't save you're money you're going to end up with a plain gun. Folks with money are actually working class people..... That's why they have money. Good Golly I dislike that term.

Stoner creek · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2019, 04:46:55 PM »

I sure hope that tool marks are acceptable because I leave a bunch without even trying.

Robin Henderson · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2019, 05:04:31 PM »

Quote from: Stoner creek on February 12, 2019, 04:46:55 PM

I sure hope that tool marks are acceptable because I leave a bunch without even trying.

^^^^^^
This

Robby · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2019, 05:11:29 PM »

A couple hundred years ago or so, when the gun makers gathered at the hearth in the general store, this topic came up with regularity.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=52237.0
Robby

Herb · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2019, 05:50:14 PM »

They show the hand of the workman.

ron w · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2019, 05:56:57 PM »

I can't speak to original guns because I am not going to let myself speculate what they are like, but I can speak to the difficulty of making something from hard maple. I spent a lifetime woodworking and building furniture and several stocks with all species of woods and i'll say that if you find tool marks on my work the piece is most likely made with Sugar Maple. it's just about impossible to not leave a tool mark or two in something made with that stuff. many times they don't show up until you apply stain or finish and then getting rid of them can potentially change the tone of the surface and finish where the tool mark is/was, so many times it is just left alone if it's not too big.

E.vonAschwege · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2019, 06:13:11 PM »

As Smartdog said, there are dozens of topics along these lines already hashed out, and I think you've already received a good variety of responses here too from some very accomplished makers. I wanted to make a quick note about the idea of a "working man's gun".

A gun was financially well-within the means of anyone who was allowed to own one, and every farmer had one for predator and pest control. Rifles, made here in the colonies, generally cost several times what an imported farmer's fowler would cost, and they were often owned by the poorest people on the frontier for hunting deer and other big game. Based on surviving examples and period documents, these were not undecorated, and are often described with a wood or brass box, carving, and curly maple stocks. There are perhaps half a dozen rifles we know of that were captured by British officers and saw almost no further use once in royal English collections. Some of these are about as well-decorated as 18th century American arms get, and were possibly being used by riflemen in battle when captured.

It's next to impossible of course to say exactly who was using them, or where they were captured, and we have to consider survival bias too - were they picked up because they were the nice ones?

If we move north to New England fowlers - we have a surprising number of surviving guns with known rev-war provenance, that also have quite the range of decoration on them.

Back to tool marks - every un-molested American gun I've handled from the 18th and early 19th centuries has tool marks - drawfile marks on the barrel and lock, scraper marks in the stock, chisel cuts not fully cleaned up in the background. Not sloppy (well, some are), but clear evidence of haste. I personally find this to be their charm, with an endearing level of quality and decoration. That was an acceptable level of quality for them, and there are many 21st century buyers that don't care for it on their new-made guns. One of my next projects is a 1740s English fowler, and the original I'm basing it on had not a tool mark to be seen (though you can guarantee the underside of the barrel is covered in file marks).

-Eric

Richard · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2019, 06:18:48 PM »

I don't like the tool marks that I have on my hands from those Iwasaki rasps.

Cory Joe Stewart · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2019, 07:21:10 PM »

I like tool marks as well. I do not bother trying to get them all out. I have an antique mountain rifle butt plate and the inside curve is covered with file marks. But the comb is much more highly polished.

Cory Joe Stewart

Marcruger · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2019, 07:27:29 PM »

I agree with Eric and others. I appreciate the scraper and tool marks on a gun or a horn. It shows the makers hand. "Charm" is an excellent word Eric.

I had a Austrian Wanzl briefly from 1862. You should have seen that stock. The scraper marks were so obvious the wrist looked faceted almost. It was the original stock as it was serial numbered like all of the parts. On a working military gun I guess they viewed a super smooth surface as not necessary.

God Bless, Marc

rich pierce · « **Reply #19 on:** February 12, 2019, 07:48:07 PM »

I’ve got an original iron mounted “jaeger” boar gun that is very finely finished or just hand worn to the point where no tool marks are readily apparent on wood or iron. Inside the inlets it is a different story.

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2019, 08:55:31 PM »

Cory brought up an interesting point about buttplates. I can't even begin to count how many old rifles - even fairly well decorated and "fancy" for lack of a better word - have the upper butt return filed and polished out fairly nicely, however the rear curved or shoulder portion of the plate displays fairly obvious file marks, scraper marks or deep casting pits/flaws. It's so common, in fact, that I would view it as the norm as opposed to random occurrence. Very similar to the way trigger guards are typically finished - nicely on the outside, fairly coarsely on the inside (facing the stock) surfaces.

Stophel · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2019, 04:28:09 AM »

I have a German bird gun done in Spanish style, ca 1730, with wonderfully original surfaces. Scraper marks are quite evident, yet it still looks quite professional. It's particularly visible in the heavy flutes cut in the butt. The wrist also just barely shows tiny facets, as the scraper was drawn down the wrist.

Daryl · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2019, 06:22:16 AM »

I would expect tool marks on run-of-the-mill rifles and fowlers. On some of the stuff, as Kuntz and Verner, not so much

- much more highly refined 'pieces' - of the specialty class, even then. Am I wrong?

Stophel · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2019, 06:57:58 AM »

I think we also have to remember that 95+% of the general public would NEVER notice tool marks, then and now. Even when pointed out to them. "We" here are all very attuned to detail, and I dare say that many of us are also pretty obsessive (I sure am). Most people simply are not. At all. What usually happens when the average Joe sees your handcrafted rifle with all the fine lines, artistic carving, and tasteful engraving? "Wow, man, nice wood!"

M. E. Pering · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2019, 07:03:34 AM »

It really depends on your own philosophy of gun building. We know that guns of the 18th century were not finished to the level to which we finish them today. We know that the 21st century mind has a different concept of reality in general than the 18th century mind. It really depends on what you want to communicate on a particular gun. Myself, I am to much of a perfectionist, and tend to make rifles that are well finished, and it is hard for me to hold back, even though I know that I am not being historically accurate. This is a fault of mine that I try and overcome, but cannot seem to bring myself to it.

So in my opinion, the question has been answered and the answer is yes. Just make sure those tool marks are done with historical tools if you are going to attempt it. You wouldn't want swirls from an orbital sander, for example, showing on the finished gun. That would be a major faux pas. But as long as they are scraper or chisel mark, I would say you are safe.

There is a certain group today that are trying to make pure works of art, and they are more likely to not appreciate tool marks. It is not that they are wrong, but just follow a certain philosophy. My philosophy is that the architecture is much more important than anything else, other than it being a truly functional weapon. We must also remember, that we have a very small percentage of guns that have survived for us to study, compared to how many there actually were back then. It is quite possible there were some makers that removed tool marks on their best work, but since we may have few examples of those, it is difficult to conjecture. I have seen very few rifles that were made for royalty in Europe of the period, but again, their view of good work was still seen through 18th century eyes.

Matt

News:

Author Topic: Are Tool Marks Acceptable? (Read 6517 times)

rfd

ron w