modern methods and materials

[oldtravler61]

  After reading all this and giving it wondrous thought. I think I will go take a nap....!   Oldtravler

[JamesT]

After all this debate I'm just curious RonW. In which manner do you build your guns? Completely 18th century traditional manner or using modern methods and materials? If you do not build at all, what manner of rifle are you looking to purchase? A completely traditional built rifle or one built using modern materials? Either way is available. What brings you satisfaction personally?

[jerrywh]

 Some things they never had "back then". True oil, permalyn, dozens of other finishes, band saws, optivisors. internet forums, gun makers fairs, acraglass, Track of the wolf. all electric type tools, kits, 12L14, UPS, and most of all Super glue.  You can use everyone of these materials and still build a authentic looking and efficient rifle. If any one person chooses not to use any of these, does that make him superior to those who don't. All through the centuries methods and materials advanced. At what date then does the PC crowd draw the line? There is nothing to stop anybody who desires to do so from building a totally pc correct rifle by totally correct methods but we aware your going to slip up somewhere along the line.  And it will take you years to learn how. Even the books you buy never existed back then. Better do some more thinking. you will also starve while doing so. In the end you will not have accomplished anything that spomebody else never did and not many will care.
  No need to lock this thread it will wear itself out pretty soon.

[HelmutKutz]

Smart Dog, if you are purchasing any part be it barrel, lock or what else, it does not qualify as being "hand made", only "hand assembled". I say this not to cause grief, but merely to point out that by definition, all parts must be made by the one who completes the project, otherwise the "hand made" is limited in scope of definition to only those parts which the builder himself manufactures. I come from Europe where such attention to detail in definition is often a coming to blows point for those of the guild mentality. Such is the same in most of Asia where you can note packages from certain manufacturers denoting the point of assembly and origin of the materials or parts. Thus, if purchasing the parts no matter their level of completion, by definition the gun is still only hand "assembled", not hand "made". Again, I am pointing out the necessity of accuracy since the details will make a very large difference not only to honesty in advertising but so also where implications of VAT and other license and tax liabilities will likely soon be involved.

For those so strongly opposed to use of modern epoxy, I ask whether that opposition extends to pine mastic which was in common use centuries before the invention of guns?
HK

[Mike Brooks]

Smart Dog, if you are purchasing any part be it barrel, lock or what else, it does not qualify as being "hand made", only "hand assembled". I say this not to cause grief, but merely to point out that by definition, all parts must be made by the one who completes the project, otherwise the "hand made" is limited in scope of definition to only those parts which the builder himself manufactures. I come from Europe where such attention to detail in definition is often a coming to blows point for those of the guild mentality. Such is the same in most of Asia where you can note packages from certain manufacturers denoting the point of assembly and origin of the materials or parts. Thus, if purchasing the parts no matter their level of completion, by definition the gun is still only hand "assembled", not hand "made". Again, I am pointing out the necessity of accuracy since the details will make a very large difference not only to honesty in advertising but so also where implications of VAT and other license and tax liabilities will likely soon be involved.

For those so strongly opposed to use of modern epoxy, I ask whether that opposition extends to pine mastic which was in common use centuries before the invention of guns?
HK

So, all the guns made 250 years ago were not hand made?

[axelp]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't most of the early 17th and 18th C gunmakers in America use parts imported or recycled from somewhere else? There were English restrictions on manufacturing here in the colonies from what I have read. Also didn't England at least built many guns where different tradesmen were responsible for making separate parts? Since this board is pretty much about reproducing and studying American Longrifles, I am not sure any kind of strict definition from europe or asia is all that relevant.

I have owned a repro long rifle that has a partially bedded barrel channel. It was something the maker did without my knowledge. If I would of had the choice, I would have rather it be inlet correctly and not have need of that, but honestly it shot fine and I did not suffer excessive rusting. I hardly thought about it and it was virtually invisible. It was a nice authentic historical correct gun and it served me well.

It has been said that the mark of a great gunmaker is his ability to cover/correct errors and flaws. I think that was never more true than in 18th C America. I appreciate the historic solutions for their simple ingenuity. As far as using premade locks and parts... my wallet appreciates that a lot. I would not be able to afford being in this hobby if not for that. But I seriously have no desire to shoot a plastic stocked flintlock even if it does look like an old timey gun. So I guess my line in the sand is clear as mud. LOL.

[rich pierce]

  No need to lock this thread it will wear itself out pretty soon.

Jerry, I always appreciate your optimism, and I’m not a betting man, but this is easy money for me. Are you familiar with “over/under” bets in sports? I have in mind a number of posts that will follow yours this week and would be happy to make a small, symbolic wager.


There are a great many people who, in all walks of life want to justify their positions and either convince others of their point of view or denigrate the others’ point of view.   This is confusing to me, when all are free to do things their own way. There are no barriers to overcome.

[HelmutKutz]

Mike Brooks, To address your question, it is fair and by accuracy of definition that guns assembled with parts manufactured by others were not "hand made" as all the components were not made by the person who assembled them. Of course, the stock being worked from a blank is hand made by the person who assembled the gun but the lock, barrel or other parts made by someone else or in a factory were not hand made by the person who assembled them. This is nothing to do with location or time period, this is about the proper definition of the words. Of course someone hand made the parts that were purchased by the person who assembled the gun, but to qualify as being "hand made" by definition the person making the claim must make every component of the assembly. Whether English or other language or continent the definition of terms are the same. Again, the point is clarity since there seems to be such attention to detail on other things, should not the work be so clearly defined as well to avoid making false claims? Is there no distinction between a hand made forged barrel and one produced on a gun drill and rifling machine in a factory setting? If not, then how can one claim a factory shaped stock is not also hand made as opposed to the builder shaping it from a blank? Thus is why the definitions must be clear and accurate or the words are worthless.

[Curtis]

If it looks like a troll, and smells like a troll...   

[Mike Brooks]

Mike Brooks, To address your question, it is fair and by accuracy of definition that guns assembled with parts manufactured by others were not "hand made" as all the components were not made by the person who assembled them. Of course, the stock being worked from a blank is hand made by the person who assembled the gun but the lock, barrel or other parts made by someone else or in a factory were not hand made by the person who assembled them. This is nothing to do with location or time period, this is about the proper definition of the words. Of course someone hand made the parts that were purchased by the person who assembled the gun, but to qualify as being "hand made" by definition the person making the claim must make every component of the assembly. Whether English or other language or continent the definition of terms are the same. Again, the point is clarity since there seems to be such attention to detail on other things, should not the work be so clearly defined as well to avoid making false claims? Is there no distinction between a hand made forged barrel and one produced on a gun drill and rifling machine in a factory setting? If not, then how can one claim a factory shaped stock is not also hand made as opposed to the builder shaping it from a blank? Thus is why the definitions must be clear and accurate or the words are worthless.

Ok, then there were virtually no hand made guns. Ever. Glad we got that cleared up.

[axelp]

Helmut, the thing is, this is a hobby that is artistic and historic in nature and not really scientific. I think there is a general assumption or agreement on this board that gunmaking starting with a plank of wood fall into a different category than a gun assembled from a kit. Also a maker that forges or casts his own parts also fall into a different category/level than someone who purchases the parts and puts it together. Then you have different levels of carving and engraving skills that set builders a part from the others. All of the above craftsmen are having fun doing good, great and sometimes magnificent work. No one is saying that each of these people are the same at all. Art cannot be defined in a scientific manner. Too many variables, and ways of looking at it.

This hobby and art is different for everyone. If your interest is in defining it precisely, then you are free to do so. But for many of us, such strict definitions are worthless. We just like the history, the art, and we like to to handle and shoot old guns.

[axelp]

Like Mike Brooks is alluding to, historically, there were all kinds of american gunmakers that did basically the same thing that american gunmakers are doing today. Some buy parts, Some try and make it all themselves. Some worked solo, many worked as a team of sorts, Same as today. That aspect has not changed for 300 years.

[David Rase]

This thread has turned into the gift that keeps on giving.  I have read enough, actually more than enough.  I am heading back to my shop to continue to hand make rifles.  Maybe a new snoozer of a thread would be to debate gunmaker vs. gunstocker.  Good luck with that one!
David

[Dennis Glazener]

Kept thinking this thread would die but I was wrong so I am locking it now.
Dennis