Are Tool Marks Acceptable?

[Nhgrants]

Thank you for sharing your insight on this topic, it is very helpful. I also seached the old posts and got some
Great info there.

[Mike Brooks]

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!"

 I'll drag along what ever gun I just finished to the local modern gunshow. Most dealers assume it is an antique and I'm an idiot and circle in for the kill. They ask " what ya got there sport?" I say " I gun I just built". They hold it and squint real hard at it and ask and ask "Oh yeah? How'd you make the barrel?" I respond "I bought it already made from a guy in Pennsylvania that makes swamped barrels." They promptly scoff and shake their heads and quickly hand the gun back to me, conversation over, I'm dismissed. It's as if you didn't make the barrel making the rest of the gun is irrelevant. Their entire assessment of many hours of my work takes maybe 20 seconds, . I must say I find this more than slightly annoying.  
 After being annoyed with several hours of this sort of thing I will occasionally answer what I have by stating "Just some old gun I've had for a while. Of course we go back to the squint and rapid assessment and I get asked "whatcha wantin to get for her?". I says 'Oh I'm thinking maybe $2800 or so." The gun then rapidly gets nearly tossed back in my hands with the comment "You'll never get near that Bub, you're way to high for an old gun."

 So, the point is outside our little circle you could shape a gun with a chainsaw and leave all the chainsaw marks and it wouldn't make any difference. Most people besides us don't even look at what we do with more than a casual glance. They are however VERY attracted to a lot of really highly buffed poorly executed  shiny inlays that make you want to puke, what I call "racoon syndrome", they can't stop rubbing those godawful shiny inlays......

 I saw a Frank House gun once that was as well done as everything else I have seen frank do, very nice work. However, the back of the buttplate appeared to have been hot filed with a rasp and no effort to remove the marks left. I found absolutely nothing wrong with the course file marks, didn't bother me in  the least, really added to the character of the rifle. Now, if I found that same technique done on one of Huddleston's guns I might have raised an eyebrow and wondered what the heck was Jerry thinking that day....

 I do leave some tool marks on my work, mainly because of the speed that I work at. I have a price point I have to hit to get my bills paid. Removing ALL tool marks may put another 20-30 hours on a gun. Most people don't want me to put another $800-$1000 to polish out all tool marks, and I believe the marks aren't an issue to them. they see them, but the overall presentation of my work is what they're buying, not a highly polished finish.

[Nhgrants]

There are a couple of reasons why I asked this question.
This is only from a hobbyist perspective.  I only make these for my self.
I have been striving to use only hand tools in their construction.  The reason for using only
hand tools is not really for some historical experience or purist approach.

Mainly saw dust really does a number on me so if I use router or sand paper I need to wear a N95 mask.
I realize there are some fine particulates from scraping but I deal with that. 

Will my skill level I anticipate that some marks are left from scraping. 
I can clean up plane and spoke shave marks with the scraper.

The other reason the challenge of trying to get more proficient with
hand tools.  Some times I think hand tools are faster compared to the set up time with a router.

I do not intended to eliminate the bandsaw though.  Using a hand rip saw on 2 inch plus
hard wood is not something I enjoy.


   
 

[Daryl]

That's how Taylor cut his out, back in the 70's - with a handsaw.

[kentuckyrifleman]

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!"

Not much to add here but I can personally vouch for the truth of this. ^^^ Haven't built a longrifle (yet) and the few that I've handled with visible tool marks have had to be pointed out to me. I never would have noticed otherwise.

[flehto]

Evidently I have a different perspective of how I want my LRs to look.....caused by my mind set   as a tool and diemaker who learned his trade many years ago.....when perfection was strived for.

I don't allow tool marks to show on my completed work for the above reason and also because I don't support myself building MLers....as did the original makers and  as some builders do today.

But....even though I strive for "perfection", the bbl flats that don't show are left in the "white", the areas that don't show of the various locks and hardware  are only given  enough finish so that they function and/or can be inletted properly . I don't fuss  unnecessarily w/ things that aren't important.....that's also a part of being a tool and diemaker.


"In a workman like manner" is often mentioned when referring to building MLers and  is a vague and subjective statement that can be taken very differently by various builders and there's nothing wrong w/ that....do what you will.

My hands on  experience w/  original guns is very limited and perhaps that's another reason that I don't tolerate tool marks....but, even w/ viewing a lot more originals w/ their tool marks, I wouldn't change ....just couldn't do it.....Fred

[Cory Joe Stewart]

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!"

 I'll drag along what ever gun I just finished to the local modern gunshow. Most dealers assume it is an antique and I'm an idiot and circle in for the kill. They ask " what ya got there sport?" I say " I gun I just built". They hold it and squint real hard at it and ask and ask "Oh yeah? How'd you make the barrel?" I respond "I bought it already made from a guy in Pennsylvania that makes swamped barrels." They promptly scoff and shake their heads and quickly hand the gun back to me, conversation over, I'm dismissed. It's as if you didn't make the barrel making the rest of the gun is irrelevant. Their entire assessment of many hours of my work takes maybe 20 seconds, . I must say I find this more than slightly annoying.  
 After being annoyed with several hours of this sort of thing I will occasionally answer what I have by stating "Just some old gun I've had for a while. Of course we go back to the squint and rapid assessment and I get asked "whatcha wantin to get for her?". I says 'Oh I'm thinking maybe $2800 or so." The gun then rapidly gets nearly tossed back in my hands with the comment "You'll never get near that Bub, you're way to high for an old gun."

 So, the point is outside our little circle you could shape a gun with a chainsaw and leave all the chainsaw marks and it wouldn't make any difference. Most people besides us don't even look at what we do with more than a casual glance. They are however VERY attracted to a lot of really highly buffed poorly executed  shiny inlays that make you want to puke, what I call "racoon syndrome", they can't stop rubbing those godawful shiny inlays......

 I saw a Frank House gun once that was as well done as everything else I have seen frank do, very nice work. However, the back of the buttplate appeared to have been hot filed with a rasp and no effort to remove the marks left. I found absolutely nothing wrong with the course file marks, didn't bother me in  the least, really added to the character of the rifle. Now, if I found that same technique done on one of Huddleston's guns I might have raised an eyebrow and wondered what the heck was Jerry thinking that day....

 I do leave some tool marks on my work, mainly because of the speed that I work at. I have a price point I have to hit to get my bills paid. Removing ALL tool marks may put another 20-30 hours on a gun. Most people don't want me to put another $800-$1000 to polish out all tool marks, and I believe the marks aren't an issue to them. they see them, but the overall presentation of my work is what they're buying, not a highly polished finish.

If I don't get asked if I made the barrel I get asked if it was a kit.  Or they won't ask, they'll just state "oh you built it, so you got it as a kit."

[rich pierce]

Say, “yep, just like old Jacob Dickert did it back in the day!” (Pick your favorite original builder)

[Jim Kibler]

What I find interesting is that those in favor of no tool marks typically believe that leaving them is lesser workmanship and therefore a lesser product.  I personally have appreciation for both approaches.

Jim

[WadePatton]

What I find interesting is that those in favor of no tool marks typically believe that leaving them is lesser workmanship and therefore a lesser product.  I personally have appreciation for both approaches.

Jim

Perspective has to the power to change everything whilst altering nothing.  My current perspective is that I'm glad it's not very difficult to leave "correct" marks with the tools I use. Also quite happy I learned to use scrapers.

[Stophel]

Personally, if it doesn't look and feel like an actual 18th century gun, then what's the point?  So that's what I've always striven for to the best of my limited ability, tools, and facilities.  That's "perfection" to me.   

[ron w]

what is the chance that original gun would have no tool marks on it ?..... is leaving tool marks saying that there were no original guns that didn't have any ?.

[Stophel]

I have photos (not seen in person) of some European guns (Hermann Bongarde comes to mind) that appear to be pretty much flawless, with wood glass smooth, and metal polished to a mirror shine, no file marks, no nothin.  But guns like this were, of course, very big money.  The best of the best.  All that polishing requires a LOT of skilled man hours.

[ron w]

exactly,....i'm sure there were some around and i'll wager they demanded big bucks ,....considerably more than a typical well made rifle back then. after all, building guns was done back then for making a living more-so than now-a-days.  i'll bet the builders back then finished them to what ever level they learned their clientele would tolerate.....as you said, fit and finish was matter of man hours invested and what was tolerably affordable as a tool.  we build today for the enjoyment and justifiably,....can afford to finish to a higher level.  not much different than a factory gun vs. a custom in today's market.....the nicer it is, the higher the price.

[alacran]

There is no right or wrong in this. You don't have to look to Europe to find flawless guns. Look at the gold mounted presentation pistols made by Simeon North.
 Wiley Grover Higgins of Georgia, or James Haslett of Maryland and many others made guns of superb fit and finish.  Then as now there was a variety of talent and skill. The was also a variety of markets.
If you go to the Davis Museum in Claremore OK, You will see that within their collection of displayed Muzzle loaders there are guns with about every level of fit and finish.

[ron w]

the hardest part is to finish without the piece looking "over sanded". best way is to leave sandpaper in the sandpaper box.  hence,... hard tooling (scraping and burnishing) will inevitably leave some tool marks,....it's just about impossible to avoid completely. I would rather see a few tool marks and see clean sharp edges and corners where they should be and truly flat surfaces where they should be. I think the original builders strived for this condition and knew and accepted, that it could not be done without leaving some signature.  sharp cutting tools and scraping/burnishing is actually faster than shaping with file and sand paper, as well. speed was important and became more important as the gun got closer to being done, ….the overhead is in the man hours spent making the gun look good. the key was to get there with as little expense as possible.

[Jeff Durnell]

The best way to not make it look 'over sanded' is to not sand it at all? No thanks. I don't want it to look like a chainsaw carving either. 

[Mike Brooks]

The best way to not make it look 'over sanded' is to not sand it at all? No thanks. I don't want it to look like a chainsaw carving either. 

There are top level gunmakers here that scrape only and don't sand, sandpaper never touches their stocks. It gives a little different texture to the finish, but it is probably closer to what guns actually looked like 200 years ago.

[ron w]

glad you jumped in here Mike,.....
    I hesitated to post likewise because I have no authority here on this sight and didn't want to start something.
    you are right, of course.  many top high power stock makers don't sand at all or only use sandpaper to wet sand finish coats where you are not really cutting raw wood. i know a bit more about high power stocking than long gun stocking, but i'm sure there are some who "scrape only", in this genre, too. and i'm sure it was standard operation with original gun makers. scarping is a very old process, there are things written about furniture makers using scrapers and oil finishes, as far back as furniture was written about.

[Jeff Durnell]

That's fine, Mike. And their choice. But, with respect, not everyone wants their gun to look like it was made 200 years ago.  All of you guys are more skilled with carving and cutting tools than I am. I'm referring more to my personal preferences and leaving what I'm (in)capable of... unsanded. Pfff, that's not happening.

To nobody in particular... there are good reasons tool marks were visible back then. But not everyone today has boycotted sandpaper and power tools. There's freedom to build them according to 1800's values, ways and means, to make new guns look like they were made 200 years ago... or not. The wood can be shaped to show clean, sharp edges, and flat were it should be, with all tool marks removed, or not.

For some it's the challenges of using some, or only, 16-17th century tools, for others it's recreating those weapons as accurately as possible and they may be fine with using a few or a lot of modern conveniences in making the final product LOOK like it was made back then. Yet others prefer the challenges of doing their absolute best, seeking perfection in their craft, or the results of it, not concerned with making it look like it could have been made back then. Weapons can be made with modern tools, to look shiny new with the finest fit and finish, while still respectful of the traditions. Imo, handmade things don't have to be more crude as 'proof' they were made by hand.

Our values and motivations will differ. And that's ok. Maker's choice. No single 'best way', or right or wrong.

Well this is fun and all, but I ain't getting anything done in here. Back to the shop to continue butchering this poor thing.

[Mike Brooks]

Just to be clear, a scraper finish looks different to a sandpaper finish, I shouldn't have mentioned anything about 200 years ago as what they did 200 years ago wasn't really my point.  I personally use both scrapers and sandpaper on my guns  where convenient. BTW, I don't make weapons, I make sporting guns. If You want a weapon make an M16 ML's make really poor weapons.


In the end, it's all about how much time you want to put into a gun. The slicker you want it the more time it takes.

[alacran]

When it comes to sanding, most people do not know proper sanding techniques. That is why they loose details and put flat spots on their work. .  No body likes to sand it is boring, and to do it right a lot of care and attention to detail must be employed.

[Mike Brooks]

When it comes to sanding, most people do not know proper sanding techniques. That is why they loose details and put flat spots on their work. .  No body likes to sand it is boring, and to do it right a lot of care and attention to detail must be employed.

How true. many times I see pics here where a newbie has sanded so much his trigger guard is now standing way proud. You gotts to pay attention....

[bob in the woods]

I prefer the look of a scraped finish, but do try to remove any tool marks I find. I use a scraper on the brass components as well. Despite my best efforts, it seems that there are always marks/ imperfections in the finished product.  Regarding levels of historical acceptability , I've seen a number of rather "high end " ?   if that term fits,  European guns with obvious wood patches in the stock. Wouldn't pass today .

[ron w]

Jeff,....
     you need to have a good close look at a few guns made by some of the top stockers that only use scrapers. both high power and ML'r their finishes are absolutely flawless and details are as sharp as a razorblade. if they weren't , they couldn't get the money they get for their work.   I assure you,....they don't look like they were made with a chainsaw !. you are right, not every body has that skill and ability, but they most likely didn't either when they started out.
there's nothing "wrong" with using sandpaper, it's just those who know, realize it isn't the best way to go and they know this because they have been there and tried scrapers, found out how good they work and like the results better than what they saw from using sandpaper. there are also a lot other reasons.  generally as mentioned people don't know how to use sandpaper correctly and don't change it out soon enough or often enough to keep the wood fibers from being crushed because of dull sandpaper. another common problem is that people don't adhere to the progression of grit schedule that is needed with sandpaper. they use too big a steps in progression which leaves to many scratches. a scraper cuts the wood fibers where as sandper,evn when fresh and sharp tears the fibers. do some research and reading about the differences in using both and I bet you'll be tempted to give scrapers a fair try on your next build.

scrapers are why the good stock makers can get such a fantastic finish using BLO and other oils that have little to no built up finish on the wood itself and why the wood's color, tone and grain structure seem to jump out at you.