Now you be the judge

[Berks Liberty]

John,

The way I look at it is we are all learning with every rifle we build.  You have a really nice rifle and I would just take the judges deductions as an opinion you can learn from. Great job and keep it up. 

[Evil Monkey]

Dave, I follow what you are saying (I think) but, how would repositioning the TG allow the wrist to be shortened without reducing the LOP?.

Something to ponder. Before yall slam the judges at Dixons, consider what it is that they are trying to do. They have to judge  perhaps 30-40 rifles and can only give best of any catagory to only ONE. Of the 30-40 entrants, there are likely 20 that are VERY good and 10 of those are outstanding, 5 are stunning. They HAVE to nit pick. Put yourselves in the judges shoes. Just for fun, think of yourself judgeing a Huddleston, Shipman and Price gun and you can only give a blue ribbon to one. What would you tell the other two builders??. If the other two builders posted pics here and said that the judge said that this, this, and this was wrong, yall would call for the judges head on a platter. It's easy to give out blue ribbons when you are only judgeing one gun.

[Dphariss]

The judges deducted points for the patch box being too small and for wrist length.

John,
I went back and studied your pictures a bit and "may" have an answer.  Your trigger appears to be too long and slanted backwards.  If it were straight and shorter, it would fit into the bow better.  The front of your trigger bow is even with your cock screw.  If the trigger was done properly, you could move the guard forward so the bow would be directly between the cock and the pan, but your trigger would still be near the back of the bow.

In turn, this would allow you to shorten your wrist length by a proportional amount, solving the appearance of the overly long wrist.  In turn, the patchbox might "appear" to be larger.  Everything is about tricking the eye to make it look right, not necessarily actual measurements.

Anyone else concur?

I think the lock is slightly too far forward due to a long breechplug.
The distance from the breech to the heel of the butt and the length of the comb are the deciding factors. I think.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Dave, I follow what you are saying (I think) but, how would repositioning the TG allow the wrist to be shortened without reducing the LOP?.

Something to ponder. Before yall slam the judges at Dixons, consider what it is that they are trying to do. They have to judge  perhaps 30-40 rifles and can only give best of any catagory to only ONE. Of the 30-40 entrants, there are likely 20 that are VERY good and 10 of those are outstanding, 5 are stunning. They HAVE to nit pick. Put yourselves in the judges shoes. Just for fun, think of yourself judgeing a Huddleston, Shipman and Price gun and you can only give a blue ribbon to one. What would you tell the other two builders??. If the other two builders posted pics here and said that the judge said that this, this, and this was wrong, yall would call for the judges head on a platter. It's easy to give out blue ribbons when you are only judgeing one gun.

When you put in for something to be judged you agree to accept the judging. Yes they have to nit-pick. Its their job. But they need to appear to be fair and consistent and in line with original rifles or they loose respect.

Yes people just LOVE to yell "kill the umpire".


To John.
Take the distance from the breech end of the barrel to the farthest point of the heel of the butt (straight line not over a curve) then multiply this by .45 and see if the distance from breech to where the comb meets the wrist matches the result.
I think that a wrist of 45% is pretty close to the A.Verner and the "John Fries Gun". Based on measuring the photos in Kindig. Rifles 52,53,54 are all 45% ballpark. If I am close in my measurements.
One way to look at this?

Dan

[jerrywh]

I agree with dphariss. I loose a lot of contests. I figure it's good for me. It means I wasn't good enough to beat the other guys. SO-- I have to get better. BUT--- when you do win it means a lot more because you know you were probably the very best at that time.
   I personally know most of the top engravers in the world and some of the best gunmakers. The very best don't win every time. They may win more often.  Life would be exttreemly boring if there was no room for improvement.  Get up every morning hoping you can learn something to make you a little better and life will be good.

[David Price]

Long John,
I entered a rifle in at Dixon' for judging for about ten years in a row.  In the beginning I got nothing, but  each year I did a little better, and finally I thought this would be the year for a big win.  The rifle that I entered was what I thought  the best that I had ever done.  I got nothing.  I was so discouraged that I said that I would never enter another rifle because I just couldn't do any better.  The following year I built a rifle for a friend and gave it to him for a present.  He was so happy with it that he insisted that it would go to Dixon's for judging.  I knew the rifle was not as good as the one that I submitted the year before and to my surprise it won best of show.  I still don't think it was the best rifle submitted that year.

The point is I don't agree with the way they judge there, but I must admit that they did make a better gun builder out of me.   Even though I don't enter a rifle there for judging anymore, when I build a rifle now I feel that the judges are over my shoulder watching.

Don't get discouraged, you built a beautiful rifle and should be very proud of it.  If you look at any rifle hard enough you will find a few areas that could be a little better.

[rich pierce]

I don't think we're bashing the judges excessively.  It's that some of their criteria are not clear (frequent points off for patchbox cavities indicates they have very strict criteria there which are unexplained).  It is also clear that some of the judges do not consider guns styled closely after originals to be candidates for ribbons, unless the originals meet their criteria.

[Long John]

Thanks for all the comments.  Many are very helpful in my quest to become a better gun-maker.

It was NOT the intent of my post to take pot-shots at the judges at the Fair.  They are unpaid volunteers who are donating their time, knowledge and insight in the effort to preserve a cherished aspect of our national culture.  I elected to include a synopsis of their comments so other members of this forum could learn from my experience.

When I build a rifle, I build what I think will function well and look nice, in that order of priority.  On this rifle, the trigger is raked back because I think it looks nice AND it allows me to design a trigger with a large mechanical advantage, yielding a light trigger pull for accurate shooting.  I could have replicated the trigger as it is on RCA #65 but I liked mine better.  That's why I consider the rifle "inspired by RCA 65" rather than a re-creation of that rifle.  I did measure the LOP (13.75 inches, Dave), the drop at the heal and the drop at the comb.  These measurements are critical for fit.  The length of the wrist was determined by how far back my right hand had to be so that the knuckle of my thumb does not interfere with the sight picture.  It would never occur to me to calculate ratios of comb length to LOP to match rifles in the references unless my objective was to replicate a particular rifle.  There is so much variability in the guns for which photos are available that I would question any "rule" derived from them.  I did scale the patchbox to the photos because I really wanted to achieve that "look".  

I have decided that I am NOT going to build to please judges - I am going to build the best rifle I possibly can and then try to improve on that with the next gun.  I made the ramrod tips for this rifle Monday night and got started on tuning the lock last night.  I'll put a little engraving on the lock before I brown it.  I plan to brown the barrel too.  I'll add some engraving to the side plate and toe plate before I deem the rifle "finished".  Then I will get going on the next one, a 54 caliber deer/bear rifle inspired by a number of rifles in RCA.

Thanks for all your feedback.

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[deano]

a bit off the judging topic.....but can you describe how the patch box release works on this gun?

[Tom Currie]

John, That's a great loking Bucks Rifle. Very well done. I am also interested in your PB release. Is it coming from the toe plate extension ?

I to am working on a Bucks Rifles , this inspiration for me.

[Long John]

a bit off the judging topic.....but can you describe how the patch box release works on this gun?

The cattch is an L-shaped lever that rotates about a pin that is installed at the bottom of the PB (rifle on its side), parallel with the hinge and goes through the catch lever where the two legs of the L join.   The long part of the L is the catch.  The short part of the L is a cam that is acted on by the catch spring.  The catch is pushed away from the hinge by an L-shaped music-wire rod that is installed in a little trench in the bottom (rifle on its side) of the PB cavity.  It fits onto a larger diameter brass rod that extends through a hole drilled through the stock to the under side of the toe plate.  The toe plate "loli-pop" has been hammered thin to work harden it and make it springy.  When the loli-pop is pushed into the stock it depresses the brass rod which pushes the music-wire rod which rotates the latch lever about the pin, releasing the PB door.  A single spring is screwed to the bottom of the patchbox (rifle on its side) that provides the return tension for the catch lever and opening force for the BP door.  If you want a copy of the sketch from which I worked email me and I will scan it and send it to you.

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[wpalongrifle]

hey long john, i also saw your rifle at dixon's, very nice gun... one thing to remember is the if your going to build a bucks co, Allentown, or any eastern co. school rifle it better be correct..these guys own or handled
hundreds of originals  over the twenty years they have been judging.  the number one thing they like
is a deeeeep patch box with thin edges and scraped smooth..my early ones weren't, i read my critique papers, changed the box and won ribbons. the thing i tell a lot of people when comming to dixon's is be prepared for criticism. you came here...the didn't ask you to. take your licks and next year bring a rifle
with that in mind. listen to the judges and you will win ribbons.. and build a correct rifle.
hope you don't get discouraged, come back next year. i started with my first entry 12 years ago
in the first gun apprentice and it took that many years to get to the masters category.

[JBlk]

I don't know the first thing out how its supposed to look, but it can grace my gun cabinet any time.I think that its a beautiful rifle and I'll bet the game will never know the difference.I have always been a thats about right kind of person, but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Kentucky Jeff]

Another thing to consider is that if you don't want to conform to the judging standards of building a traditional style rifle you can enter it in the "Contemporary" category and you won't get points taken off if you build a gun that has some unique features or architecture.

[Brian]

A beautiful gun John.  Well done.  I wish I could turn one out that was even fractionally as nice.  Maybe.  Some day.  I can hope! 

I don't think I'd want the judges job at Dixon's.  Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place!  So much beautiful work, so many talented builders - how DO you pick between this one and that one - and then the one over there?   

[Acer Saccharum]

Great to see your gun here, John. I think this is a splendid effort, and one that speaks very highly of how much thought and effort you put into it. Just a very pretty gun. You done yourself proud. I know you doggedly worked through this with a lot sweat and questioning, but man, you should be floating. Just a really neat gun. I am proud of you, John, for putting your heart and soul into this,  and proud that you would ask my opinion of your work, and for help along the way.

Judging. Hmmm. i have had problems with that myself. But that is a subject for another post.

Congratulations, John. Job very well done.

Tom

[BJH]

John, This is some really good work. I would be certainly Be proud to call it mine. I certainly would not sweat the judging down at Dixon's, your work speaks for it self.  The work that was submitted for judging at Dixon's was Exceptional this year.  As a result the competition on the bench was brutal.  There is usually a healthy sized group of beginner level guns, there was next to none this year. The winner in 1st gun category was incredible...  So  in other words go enjoy that fine rifle!

[Long John]

Acer,

That rifle would never have turned out half as well as it did were it not for the critiques I received from you and Eric.  You were right about everything you critiqued!  Your carving tutorial taught me points about carving that I had completely missed - I didn't even know they existed!  Cody's quips about engraving taught me a critical insight that improved my engraving (as crude as it still is) profoundly.  Jerry's uncompromising attitude about quality in our craft haunted me into poring more effort into every aspect of the build. 

You have my unending gratitude.  I am very fortunate, indeed,  to have you as my friend!

I think what we ought to do is urge all the ALR members to bring their uncompleted guns to the fair for a critique meeting.  We can get a bunch of chairs and let each person with an unfinished gun have an informal, "amongst us friends" critique of what can be inproved and how that improvement could be implemented.  No bashing, just helpful feed-back.  I know how much the critique last year helped me!  I came home and took my #49 to carving that I had spend several dozen hours on and erased it all!  It was the right thing to do, not because the carving was bad but because there was an 1/8th inch too much wood under it all!

Maybe we should think about such a program.

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

John, I'm going to climb on the bus too...I agree that the rifle is really lovely.  I was impressed last year at Dixon's with it before it was finished, and I like it even better now.  I took this picture of the butt carving...pretty difficult to fault it then in my opinion.



Congratulations on a superb rifle.

[Long John]

Thank you Taylor!  You were another of those ghosts sitting on my shoulder as I worked on it!  As a matter of fact, it was at your insistance that I rasped off the carving to remove almost an 1/8th inch of wood that didn't belong on the wrist!

I really think we should try to get an ALR tunk together at next year's fair where we all can sit around and help others like yuou all helped me!

Thanks Again,

John Cholin

[timM]

John,.......Gorgeous Rifle!  Here is the inside of one Bucks Co. patch box.  Something the references don't seem to show.  tim

[Acer Saccharum]

Tim, I think the builder left too much wood between the cavity and the buttplate.    I think this is what you would call "culture clash", since John's box innards are so very similar, yet the judges say there is too much wood.

On this note:
Did you guys know that there is a seminar by the judges at Dixon's? And then a seminar by builders on how to build for the judging?

This is from Jeff Guillaume, about Dixon's judging:
 THE 1ST TWO SEMINARS  SAT A.M. ARE BY A JUDGE AND BUILDER .
THE JUDGE READS THE SHEET , STATES WHAT HE IS LOOKING FOR AND WHY.  THE
BUILDER THEN EXPLAINS HOW "HE" ACCOMPLISHES THE ITEM BEING DISCUSSED.

i must confess that this is news to me, having these seminars available. Now that I know about them, I would definitely go and listen to what is said. It does not mean I will change how I build a gun, but I would like to have a better understanding the hows and whys of the judging process.  We all know that when we build a gun 'just like the original' it can suffer terrible losses in the ribbon dept. In this regard, I would want to know WHAT TO EXPECT when I submit a rifle. i plan to attend these two talks next year.

[b bogart]

Wow timm does that explain alot to me.
I got  iit wrong last gun.
Any other pix of that gun forthcoming 
Bruce

[Kentucky Jeff]

Tim, I think the builder left too much wood between the cavity and the buttplate.    I think this is what you would call "culture clash", since John's box innards are so very similar, yet the judges say there is too much wood.

On this note:
Did you guys know that there is a seminar by the judges at Dixon's? And then a seminar by builders on how to build for the judging?

This is from Jeff Guillaume, about Dixon's judging:
 THE 1ST TWO SEMINARS  SAT A.M. ARE BY A JUDGE AND BUILDER .
THE JUDGE READS THE SHEET , STATES WHAT HE IS LOOKING FOR AND WHY.  THE
BUILDER THEN EXPLAINS HOW "HE" ACCOMPLISHES THE ITEM BEING DISCUSSED.

i must confess that this is news to me, having these seminars available. Now that I know about them, I would definitely go and listen to what is said. It does not mean I will change how I build a gun, but I would like to have a better understanding the hows and whys of the judging process.  We all know that when we build a gun 'just like the original' it can suffer terrible losses in the ribbon dept. In this regard, I would want to know WHAT TO EXPECT when I submit a rifle. i plan to attend these two talks next year.

That's why I posted my comments above.  I sat through those seminars and was trying to relay what was communicated.   

The post before yours was a good example...that original Bucks rifle may indeed have a ton of wood left in the patch box.  But the judges don't base rifles entered in the traditional category off of individual examples.  Rather they take the common characteristics of a school and in their minds what is the ideal Lehigh, Bucks, Lancaster etc based on a "perfect" example of what a gun from that time might look like.

Some people will scoff at this but stop and think about it.  If all that matters is your subjective opinion and tastes then there really isn't any valid criteria.   If an original had gaps in the inletting then by golly you shouldn't take points off a gun you are scoring! 

As I said in my earlier post.   Its pretty clear what they are looking for as they passed out the scoring sheets in the seminar.  Allen Martin explained how he would submit a rifle and get points taken off for things he couldn't understand or agree with.  But once he asked the judges what they were thinking he corrected his mistakes and began making guns that won ribbons and by his own admission were better guns. 

I'm not making excuses for the judges here--simply trying to get folks to see why they scored Long John's rifle like they did.    And as was pointed out in the seminar--don't focus on the few things you got wrong--look at all the things you got right! 

I still think he made a dandy rifle. 

[Acer Saccharum]

It is out of a desire to help the entrants learn gunbuilding that the judges volunteer their time. In the interest of processing fifty to ninety guns in a day, the judges have come up with a universal system by which to judge the guns. yes, it has certain flaws, in that it does not accommodate variation within a school of building, rather it compares your work to an 'ideal gun'.

In my mind, you go through this process, you learn what it takes to win, and you move on. Take it as an educational tool. It seems to me, that if you really want that ribbon, you must learn the ropes. Not that it is the right way or the only way to build a gun, but in order to get the prize, you must get all the details right in that 'ideal gun'. Whether you stay with this style or not, you will have learned valuable lesson along the way, as Kentucky Jeff pointed out. Use the system for the education. You may not agree with the teachers, but you will get an education. That, to me, is the bottom line.

Tom