modern methods and materials

[Dennis Glazener]

Bob is correct. All of us have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to being historically correct. It's just a matter of deciding where we are comfortable. We should make that choice for our self and let others make their choice. Once we make that decision we should refrain from making remarks about others decision to be more or less HC than we are. Never understood why some need to chastise others that decide to do things differently than we do. I guess it's just human but it sure us a source of conflict between otherwise peacefully discussion.
Dennis

[Marcruger]

I cherish these forums for the civil and gentlemanly spirit of cooperation, teaching and learning. There is an almost total lack of trolls lurking under the bridge. Generally, folks here are traditional longrifle folks who are interested in the traditional ways, even if we cannot all achieve those craft goals all the time.   

Ron W, with no disrespect intended, your original post and follow up responses seem like you came looking for an argument.  If stirring the pot is the intent, then may I suggest posting "black powder is better and should be used in AR15s" over on some Black Gun Forum? 

Tim, Dennis, I think this thread is ready to be locked.  Just my opinion of course. 


Best wishes,  Marc

[axelp]

I think the old adage "if they'd of had it they would have used it" is a no brainer-- of course. Because the old dead guys were not reenacting or reproducing anything. They were the modern gun builders of their time.

If Boone would of had an AR15 and an Uzzi, and maybe night vision goggles and some hand grenades at the battle of Boonesborough, he'd of used them too. He was not reenacting. He was surviving. And if he HAD used all that, and we were reenactors of Boone, we would do that too. But he didn't. So we don't.

As far as some using modern processes or stuff to help facilitate your build in order to make more money or save time or maybe enable you to create something more accurate or historical looking, you could not do otherwise, or just because you like doing it a different way, I see nothing wrong with that. Just define your work and product accurately and honestly. A gun made at Williamsburg using only historical parts and skills/processes is going to cost more for obvious reasons than a mass produced gun using cost-saving materials and processes. As a cheap skate, poor historical hobbiest, I dream of and admire the first and am quite happy and run the woods with the second.

[Mike Brooks]

   OK,....I guess I understand now,....it's not alright to use acra-glass to bed barrel and seal it or seal a lock mortise because it's not needed and/or not traditional, but it's perfectly fine to use a lock, a trigger ass'y and a barrel made with modern steels and CNC machining centers.………….. further you can't make a rifle outwardly traditional appearing because you used said materials to make your work more resistant to the weather and stabilized against moisture.

     come to think of it,....maybe I don't understand...….

Actually, I don't think you do understand. If you want to use accraglass I'm all for it. Get out the goo and go, go, go. I think we all agree that's up to the individual. I just happen to be one of the individuals that doesn't believe there's a need to do it and you happen to think it's essential otherwise your gun will fall apart.
 What you are missing is our locks and barrels being machine made have nothing remotely to do with Accra glass. Understand we still can forge locks and barrels just like they did 250 years ago. What would that add to the price today? another 10 to 20K? That's the  death of muzzle loading.  So, now we go to a barrel maker that uses state of the art methods and material and buy a barrel and go to a lock maker and buy a lock mad with state of the art materials and methods. Hey wait a minute.....that's EXACTLY what they did 250 years ago!
 Back in my wasted youth my Amigos and I were canoeing to a Rendezvous down the Maquoketa River and my pard and I took a little roll over when we miscalculated an old dam raceway. Didn't loose nothing, everything was tied in 'cause we be smart. Anyway, when we got to the Rendezvous we disassembled guns. My fowling gun wasn't glass bedded. The wood was damp. I put it back together and because of past experience with wet guns I left the lock screws and tang screw slightly loose because I knew it was bound to swell, and it did. My Jeager was glass bedded. There was a lot of water in the barrel channel because it had no where to go. I wiped it out and put it back together leaving the screws loose like on the other gun. It swelled up just like the fowling gun. I tightened down the screws next day when it was time to shoot, no problems with zero, it hadn't moved on either gun. By the middle of the week I was back home and took the barrels out again. The fowling gun was dry inside as was the jeager.
 So, in that particular experience I found there was no need to take the barrel out of the fowling gun, but it was important to take the barrel out of the jeager to get the water out of the barrel channel. Most folks will probably never experience this sort of thing, I ran with a group of jolly gents that played hard and it was hard on equipment and guns. We rarely ever carried tents so when it rained you and everything else got wet.

[rich pierce]

This is a pointless exercise but I will point out that to me there is a vast difference between acraglas and wood.

Often used is the weak argument that “modern steels are not wrought iron”. This is set up as a possibly strong argument which is, “if you’re not going to be perfectly pure, then anything goes.@


If anyone is confused about whether something used in building a longrifle today is in the vein of originals it’s really not hard to find clarity.

Wrought iron and steel are mostly iron. Both come from iron ore and are smelted. Their properties are hardly distinguishable by eye.

Wood is from trees and largely comprised of cellulose and lignin whereas acraglas is a polymer made in vats somewhere.

The “forged versus CNC” is also a red herring argument. They result in parts largely indistinguishable from each other. Both are excellent for producing a phenocopy of an original longrifle. And that’s what we do here.

This thread will soon be locked as it really has little to do with building traditional longrifles.

[ron w]

not looking for an argument what so ever,.....just trying to understand the scope of what people call a "traditional replica" using modern made yet traditional functioning tools,...ie. scrapers gouges,etc. doesn't necessarily make the gun traditional,...it is the only way the average guy can shape up a stock and putting a "time honored "finish like BLO on a piece might be "period correct" as far as finishes go, but not the best as far as preserving the all hard work you just committed to.

   I read about people scoffing at using power tools and then see a gun they made that has a lock etc., made with a CNC milling center and read about a guy that just bought a milling center to produce more accurately made flintlocks in numbers that only modern machinery can produce,...yet he calls his stuff "period correct".  then I read all sorts of stuff about guys "aging" their guns,.....all those original were new looking at one time too. how can letting the gun age by use be less "historically correct" than deliberately aging a gun with chains and keys, or whatever? I have way too much respect for an expensive piece of wood than to bang it all to h#ll with chains and keys,.....it will get banged up enough just standing in the corner of a room,...it doesn't need any help.

[Mike Brooks]

not looking for an argument what so ever,.....just trying to understand the scope of what people call a "traditional replica" using modern made yet traditional functioning tools,...ie. scrapers gouges,etc. doesn't necessarily make the gun traditional,...it is the only way the average guy can shape up a stock and putting a "time honored "finish like BLO on a piece might be "period correct" as far as finishes go, but not the best as far as preserving the all hard work you just committed to.

   I read about people scoffing at using power tools and then see a gun they made that has a lock etc., made with a CNC milling center and read about a guy that just bought a milling center to produce more accurately made flintlocks in numbers that only modern machinery can produce,...yet he calls his stuff "period correct".  then I read all sorts of stuff about guys "aging" their guns,.....all those original were new looking at one time too. how can letting the gun age by use be less "historically correct" than deliberately aging a gun with chains and keys, or whatever? I have way too much respect for an expensive piece of wood than to bang it all to h#ll with chains and keys,.....it will get banged up enough just standing in the corner of a room,...it doesn't need any help.

Ok, now I get it. You're mad at Kibler for making period correct guns with CNC machines. You're mad at Chambers for using modern machinery for making locks. You're mad at Rice for using CNC equipment to make barrels. You're also mad at all sorts of people  for aging guns. Any other things on the list?

[ron w]

 how can a post that challenges the methodology of building these guns be controversial enough to be locked in a forum that is about building these guns ?.    as soon as someone comes along with points that realistically promotes discussion,....it gets threatened.

[flehto]

Whatever way,  method or components that one prefers to build a MLer w/ should be accepted if the end product displays a mostly recognizable  result. The LRs being built or assembled today run the gamut of those being entirely   hand made  by the gunsmiths at Williamsburg to those being assembled w/  a CNCed precarved stock that admittedly  requires very little knowledge or skill...and both have been generally accepted by most members of the ALR.

So in the end, this discussion and previous ones end up going in circles......Fred

 

[Mike Brooks]

I think you covered it Fred.

[smart dog]

Hi,
How often does someone actually post criticizing others for not using "traditional" methods?   Rarely.  How often does someone post because they feel the need to justify why they use "modern" methods, or complaining that they somehow are persecuted or looked down upon for doing so, or criticize others for trying to use historical methods using "straw man" arguments like "why bother because the barrels are machined from modern steel blah, blah, blah...?  Much more common.  My point is that on this forum, given the civil and thoughtful behavior shown by the vast majority of our members, this may be a perceived issue but it is not a real one.

dave 

[Eric Krewson]

On my first build I decided to fit the barrel carefully after Fred Miller did the inlet. Being an incompetent novice I ended up with a roller coaster barrel channel that got worse the more I worked on it. I finally threw my hands up and said to heck with it and built my rifle.

This rifle never shot well, I blamed it on my poor inletting and bought a accuglass kit to bed the barrel. Well, the gun would shoot a minute of deer group so it became my #1 deer rifle. I never got around to bedding the barrel and gave the kit away to a friend who tried to use it and found the components had set up like concrete over the years.

Fast forward a bunch of years, I thought I had tried every load combination possible in this rifle. On day at the range I was checking on my ball drop at 100 yards from my 50 yard 0 and set my powder measure wrong without noticing. I took a couple shots and walked down to the backstop to check my drop and there were two neat holes grouped together a little over an inch apart. I went back to the bench and shot again, same result.

So, 80gr of 2F, a .530 ball and .015 ticking was what my rifle needed, not glass bedding to correct my sloppy inletting attempt.

Sometimes we talk ourselves into a fix that is not necessary, I surely did.

[axelp]

Some folks are happy with plastic reproductions of old timey guns, some are happy with only historical exact practices and materials. Some are somewhere in between.

I find that most times it is a learning, maturing progression, where the fellow starts with plastic whizzbang old timey stuff and moves gradually to a more historically correct outfit. As we grow and mature in the hobbies we get into, we spend more money and brain cells to get closer to what was actually used and done. At any point in this process we are happy with what we have or we at least act like we are the brightest bulb in the chandelier and swear that its the best place to be, and we criticize the ones coming up behind us and the ones that are up ahead of us as well. Human nature I guess.

There is a place in the choir for everybody in this line of progression... or "regression" as in the case of us historical hobbyists.

[rich pierce]

how can a post that challenges the methodology of building these guns be controversial enough to be locked in a forum that is about building these guns ?.    as soon as someone comes along with points that realistically promotes discussion,....it gets threatened.

Nothing is learned in such “discussions”. I note you did not refute my points on the logic of your conveyed position.

Anyone who wants to bed or not bed their rifles with Acraglas or completely stock them in composite is welcome to do so. I recall seeing a laminated blaze orange, futuristic flintlock rifle judged at Dixon’s a few years back.  It scored well in the “non-traditional” category.  Titanium inlays are cool also if they float your boat. Such topics will get few “awesome” responses here because most here are interested in replicating original longrifles. If the lack of enthusiasm for glass bedding is annoying, there’s little that the moderators can do about that.

What readers here do not see is personal messages and reports asking that topics be shut down because they do nothing to help anyone. If and when moderators find a topic is largely negative and has nothing positive to contribute to the craft, we often lock it so folks can move on.

[Jerry]

I properly built gun needs no accraglass any where. I have had many old guns apart and the barrel channels look fine for a couple hundred years old. I'm not at all sure why you would need accraglass in a lock mortise. Accraglass anywhere on a muzzleloader seems to be a fix for a problem that doesn't exist. I have a gun here now I built in 1985. I haven't had the barrel out but the lock mortise looks the same as it did 35 years ago, with out accraglass.

How any of this relates to modern methods of making barrels and locks is a matter of economics.. I certainly don't want to pay anybody for a hand forged barrel and lock. If we had to depend on that this little hobby would be over.....or more than likely never would have existed after cartridge guns became available.

Mike, My thoughts are exactly with yours on accraglass or bedding of any kind. I'm not as particular bedding my barrels as I once was, but I still take the time to smoke the bottom of the barrel with a candle and scrape the inlet until I know that after pinning I can thump the side of the stock with my knuckles and get that solid sound. Jerry

[B.Habermehl]

Every one has opinions about the use of epoxy. Many of us will use it for repairs etc. I have found it necessary by times to bed breeches of barrels using it on soft pieces of maple and other species of wood. Usually on customer supplied wood. It does help protect from splitting and oil absorption. I’m in the occasional use group. I prefer the pureist approach but I’m also a realist. When a tool is needed I use it.  With no apology. BJH

[Mike Lyons]

If you read the mission statement and the rules,  it appears that it is welcome to build a rifle using all traditional means.  If you do it,  you may be the “Grand Poo Ball” of ALR.  That’s a title that would come with great respect. This is another one of those odd ball threads.  What’s the best patch lube anyhow?

[jerrywh]

 I don't think this thread should be locked. It seems to me that there is a lot to be learned on this subject. There's not a gun maker alive who hasn't made a mistake in in letting a gun part. There are different ways to correct the problem.  Accra glass is just one. I know for a fact that some gun makers in the 18th century used hide glue to fill small gaps. I have seen it when restoring them. Some times it was mixed with wood dust. In America most guns were made for a different purpose than they were in Europe or England. Across the pond they expected them to be perfection and every part was made by guild member professionals. American gun smiths usually made them as fast and as cheap  as possible and to the customers requirements. If they had some small defect neither the maker or the customer cared as long as the gun was accurate,dependable  and strong. American guns were crude in comparison. Now we are astonished that the American gun smiths could make them with the tools they had.  Perhaps 200 years from now they will be astonished at what we are doing now. They used wha twas available as we do now. Nothing has really changed except now we debate over the internet.
  Another point is this. If you want to be totally HC get off the forum. They never had it back then either.

[Hungry Horse]

 Since everybody is all mounted up on their high horses, and forming up the posse. I will be one of the  first to admit to using Microbed on a muzzleloader. It was my first scratch built gun, made from cheap scavenged parts. It was a chiefs grade trade gun with a 20 gauge 30” barrel. The stock was cut from a kiln dried piece of Madrone. The gun was light, handy, and shot like a rifle, until I took it to a rendezvous where it rained for a day and a half. The point of impact moved, like two feet, when the stock obsorbed some moisture. When it dried out it was back to shooting good. After a couple of episodes with the moisture issue, I decided to bed the barrel. It never moved again.
 Did I continue to bed muzzleloaders? Nope, I learned that better finishes, and use of paste floor wax under the barrel, eliminated the need for bedding compound.
 I have seen numerous muzzleloaders ruined by builders bedding the barrels, and then destroying the stock trying to get the barrel out.

 Hungry Horse

[Robby]

Ah well.
Robby

[ron w]

I just don't see where using some epoxy bedding can be detrimental in any way....it can only improve the weatherability of the stock. I guess I get frustrated when I see that people can't accept something that neither hurts or changes anything and can only help, but the refute the idea with no real justification or support that might explain a reason not to do it. 

  as I've stated before, I spent a lifetime working with wood and I know that it is not good, or even OK for wood to absorb moisture. practically,...we do everything we can to keep moisture out of wood,....why then would it be fine for wood that is next to rustable steel, to absorb moisture and claim it won't promote rust on the steel that is in contact with it ?. to me,... that just doesn't make sense.

[ron w]

I have seen numerous muzzleloaders ruined by builders bedding the barrels, and then destroying the stock trying to get the barrel out.

 Hungry Horse

  I have seen a few my self..... this issue is not one of improperly using bedding compound, or not know how to bed a barrel. this sort of thing happens when people don't know what they are doing. this thread is, I think,...beyond that level of incompetence. we here in this thread,... all know how to use bedding compound. the better you know how to use it, the more it can be used to benefit the gun.

[Bob Roller]

To me,any ,method we can now avail ourselves of to make long rifles and the
bits and pieces it takes to make them is just fine.Some of us depend on our
shops and skills either for ALL income or at least a part of it and to revert to
long discredited methods would be foolish.Jim and Katherine Kibler are the
best examples I can think of that have embraced the long rifle and figured out
a way for most of us to have a great one if we want one.
In my lock and trigger making I will use any ideas that make the job easier AND
maintain the level of quality I insist on and I don't apologize for my attitude
about this.

Bob Roller

[Mike Brooks]

You worry too much. It doesn't hurt wood to get wet, it dries out. Go lay a raw board out in the rain, the water only soaks in a little, then dries out.  None of my stocks have rotted away and none of my barrels have rusted through. It's just not a big deal. I recommend you don't leave your guns lay out in the rain, that will take care of most of your concern right off. You go ahead and do your bedding, it won't bother me a bit. You'll be happy and so will I.

You know, the old timers could have put finish in barrel channels and under all the other parts and in patch boxes etc. but I see no evidence of this practice when I take old guns apart. It seems to have just not been an issue.

Next subject please.....

[yellowhousejake]

Ron,

I think I see what you are asking. I do not believe many, if any, LR were built by grizzled old men sitting under a tree using a pocket knife. We know from records that apprentices were used, that locks were bought premanufactured by the most modern methods, barrels were made in factories and shipped over from Europe to be sold to gunstockers and then were used to shoot redcoats, indians, bears, and each other.

CNC replaces apprentices. The gun trade guilds of England were the CNC of the period. If they could have bought precarved stocks, I suspect they would have used more than a few.

Acraglass  is not a wonder tool, it replaces skill in inletting or the need to properly stock a modern rifle. If it is used to repair an error in worksmanship, it is a shortcut to inletting a wood patch. Acraglass will not provide a more accurate rifle than restocking properly. It was originally intended as a way to take a low priced and mass produced stock and make the action fit like a well made custom rifle. It is a gunsmithing shortcut, a time and money saver.

I think, just my opinion mind you, that the current use of purchased barrels and locks is following in the footsteps of the original makers. The lack of use of acraglass is because the builders here know how to do a stocking up job properly, so they do not need to mess with it.

Does that answer your question?

DAve