Author Topic: Tool marks on original guns?  (Read 29069 times)

Offline Jim Filipski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • Jim W. Filipski  Flintlocks
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2009, 12:26:17 AM »
Horrors!

Another gun from the Metropolitan. Look at the background scuffs. This would not pass these days as acceptable. Would anyone have the nerve to buck the current trends toward perfection? Hmmm. EK has done quite a bit of that.

close up:




Now this brings another point to mind.  There was sloppy workmanship then as there is now!  Even if different standards exist between now and then, everything from the past doesn't get a pass in my opinion.  I realize this is somewhat subjective, but the standard I use is wheter it is asthetically appealing.  The scratches shown above detract from the carving in my opinion.  The facets shown on the gun Chris posted are beautiful and extremely appealing to me, however.  This goes back to my previous post on how the method of obtaining  a degree finish matters. 

The "art" is present it is only the "canvas" that is flawed. Some of the best art has been created on substandard media.
Ah! The "machined perfection mindset"............
blinds many of the beauty of the world.
This piece is beautiful as many old pieces are with all their imperfections.
Jim
" Associate with men of good quality,  if you esteem your own reputation:
for it is better to be alone than in bad company. "      -   George Washington

"A brush of the hand
of Providence is behind what is done with good heart."

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2009, 12:35:42 AM »
Jim, sloppy workmanship, then, as in now....

There are several guns in the Steinschloss book that have wonderful metal work, beatifu high grade wood....BUT...the inletting of the parts is terrible, all gappy and chipped. THis means most of the guys in the shop were doing their job, except Helmut the inletter could no longer see very well.
Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2009, 12:43:37 AM »

There are several guns in the Steinschloss book that have wonderful metal work, beatifu high grade wood....BUT...the inletting of the parts is terrible, all gappy and chipped. THis means most of the guys in the shop were doing their job, except Helmut the inletter could no longer see very well.

LOL!!  Great humour.  I wonder if the original inletting was tighter, but the use of the rifle/s in different seasons and/or may have not been stored such that the wood expanded and contracted more and thus "opened up" the inletting fit.?

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2009, 12:56:43 AM »
There was more than one set of hands that worked on a gun.  One guy might inlet the barrel and lock, another guy might shape the stock, another guy might inlet the buttplate, etc.  It was almost factory work.

I have another gun with engraved hardware, that I have no doubt was mass produced and sold to various makers.  The engraving is FLAWLESS.  If you have a guy (or gal) that did nothing but engrave triggerguards all day, every day, they're likely to get good at it.   ;)
When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."

Offline Dr. Tim-Boone

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6538
  • I Like this hat!!
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2009, 01:08:32 AM »
Its funny cause sometimes a custom long rifle looks like it came from a factory....everything is perfect and perfectly straight...Just like a new Remington or....... Its crazy I know but that is the feeling I get.  I like em all don't get me wrong and I appreciate those who can make a gun that is perfect..great skill.....If I had to pick between one perfect one or one with tool marks and looked like it was made in the tool shed but still pleasing,  ...which would I choose.....
De Oppresso Liber
Marietta, GA

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others. – William Allen White

Learning is not compulsory...........neither is survival! - W. Edwards Deming

Offline Don Getz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6853
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2009, 01:28:36 AM »
You guys are making me feel better all the time, however, I just can't imagine charging $3500 for a barn gun.......hey,
that's the way they were made..........Don

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2009, 01:35:16 AM »
Quote
You guys are making me feel better all the time.......Don

What have we unleashed?
Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Pvt. Lon Grifle

  • Guest
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2009, 03:00:19 AM »
How do the comments here fit with the known great variety of plain guns, with little or no wood carving and engraving but otherwise well done construction. ?    Lon

Online rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2009, 03:17:02 AM »
Depends on period.  We don't get to study a lot of pre-1780 plain, gunsmith-made guns (as opposed to armory guns).  The plain early rifle Acer has shown us previously was apparently efficiently and expeditiously shaped with drawknife, planes and spokeshaves, quickly scraped and finished.
Andover, Vermont

54Bucks

  • Guest
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2009, 03:23:39 AM »
 I think we have unleashed a lot of confusion and discouragement. I don't think we need to divide into those who prefer to see tool marks on their finished barrels and stocks and those who don't.I also don't want to worry that the sandpaper police might break down the door tonight charging me with aiming for perfection.
 Perhaps it will soon occur to us that no 18th century American longrifles have been built for 2-300 years.If such unrealistic standards continue to be suggested as "Historically Correct" there will be fewer contemporary guns or builders and/or those who simply enjoy flint and percussion American longrifles.

Offline wmrike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2009, 03:34:34 AM »
I think toolmarks are a reasonable expectation.  No reason to lower out esteem of the old makers.  Consider the eighteenth century gunsmith as a professional whose task was to produce a working piece at a reasonable price and profit, not something to be put away in the gun safe.  Expediency ruled.  Against that backdrop, highly refined lines and proportions can effectively draw the eye away from file and scraper marks and the like.  Perfectly cut barrels channels - who needs them?  Remove all the file marks from the lock and buttplate - in a year there will be enough rust and corrosion that they won't be noticed.  Our challenge today is to replicate those fine lines as best we can and we have the realtive luxury of being able to ice the project with an outstanding level of finish so as to showcase the whole.  Today's guns are for the most part made, bought and sold, and even used, as works of art

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2009, 04:24:41 AM »
54bucks, I apologize if my thoughts come out in a discouraging way. That is not my intention at all, nor do I pretend that any discussion here should be laying down any kind of rules or trend as the 'new normal', where sand papered wood is not acceptable.

I am simply looking at originals and looking at contemporary, and noting the differences. I am trying to discover the old methods and tools that were used, and this discussion is helpful to me in that regard. In no way does it set the standard for anyone else. I want to create works that are as close to the originals as I can make them, in spirit, and the study of tool marks is part of this.

There is always separation between full blown contemporary and full bore bench copy guns. Everything else in between is on a sliding scale toward one philosophy or the other. It's all OK. It's one of these things where YOU get to choose what you want to build.

Tom
Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Offline smshea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • www.scottshearifles.com
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2009, 04:45:18 AM »
  Ive seen too many originals with tooling marks to think it uncommon,whether or not it was anyones standard is another story.
 The original makers were all different and there standards were likely dictated by all kinds of things that are locked away in history and will never be fully understood by us. Who they made it for, why they made it , how fast , were they rushed, was it special for someone and they took an extra three months to make it....generally we will never know. What should be obvious is that some makers here in America (and I would argue not the majority)made rifles to high art degree as some of the best makers today do......and some did not! Taking from the current Berks co. display John Bonowitz vs. Johans Neff, Two very different degrees of talent....both very interesting and exquisite rifles. Anyone of us can pick our favorite and least favorite gun and the reasons will as subjective as the day is long whether its tool marks , crude carving etc. etc. that make some of us think certain  rifles are sub par. If we just mimic the work that is excepted by others as worthy of contemporary interpretation, we would all be bored to tears.
 Someday someone is going to come across that Rifle that Jim Kibler posted a few days ago(The most stunning contemporary I think Ive ever seen...just my opinion) and compare it to one of Eric Kettenburgs aged guns(One of my favorite contemporary builders...just my opinionfor my own set of reasons ) and there will be allot of discussion. We all know that they are two very gifted artists doing two very different things and coming up with two very different results....will they 200 years from now?  And will it matter, they will both be original rifles from this period.       
 

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2009, 05:33:35 AM »
So the wood workers are going to allow the other guilds to do wonderful professional work while theirs looks like it was done by some passerby off the street given a quart of beer and a chisel or maybe an awl?
I am skeptical.
Does anyone REALLY think some master wood carver is going to do work like this or accept it from his apprentices?  Could the apprentices ever get to be journeymen in the guild doing this sort of work? I think not.  Why does not all the wood finish look like this? If they can smooth the wood reasonably well in one place they can smooth it everywhere.
Scratches in the background don't look like tool marks, at least not tools used for wood. Why would someone use a scratch awl to work down the background?
Maybe someone "cleaned" it with a dental pic.
Maybe some kid played with it in the 1890s, cleaned out the mud with a fork or pen knife and got his butt whipped.
When looking at old guns one must wonder who did what when.
Instead of falling all over ourselves trying justify the hack job we should be wondering how if could have come out of the guild system with a background this poorly done.
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline VP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2009, 05:49:27 AM »
Maybe I am off base but how much does the quality of finish we are using today effect the work we do to eliminate the tool marks. The initial questions was due to the fact that my finish shows imperfections off like a neon light. When I look at Jim Kibler latest posting of his rifle I believe you would see the slightest tool mark with the quality of finish he uses and the digital pictures ability to show in slightest detail.

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2009, 06:03:40 AM »
Dan, it's hard to know after 200 years how much of the finish is original, and how much is refinished, scrubbed, glued, painted over, etc. However, the Hauschka gun,(the first example I posted) is practically a brand new gun. Very little use. Most of the high art European guns have been well cared for. American guns, on the other hand, have seen much use and abuse, to the point where the wood shows little evidence of the shaping/finishing methods whatsoever.

I am going by what I have seen in person.

Tom

Metropolitan Hauschka: look at the frizzen. How many shots has this gun fired? Probably none.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 07:14:24 AM by Acer Saccharum »
Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2009, 09:33:36 AM »
The comment that Lynton McKenzie makes on the engraving video about the quality of engraving on guns of the 18th and 19th century being unable to pass buyer inspection today since the stuff was cheap and used to fill in blank spaces.
I do think that in that context we take some of this to seriously or too critically. It was, in the context of the times, just decoration.
Sometimes I probably loose sight of this. But being in the 21st century I have to work to a higher standard since the people looking at it might have just been looking at a best quality Westley Richards double ect etc. I have friends and customers that KNOW good guns and are not into antiquing or copying poor workmanship. They won't pay for it and frankly consider it silly.

I had a *pair* of Super Britte shotguns here for a *very short* period of time. High 5 figures for the pair. Owner let them get slightly brown ::) in the engraving and a spot of rust on a breech face.
http://www.gunsinternational.com/articles.cfm?id=29
I can pretty well do Kentucky grade engraving now. Could not do the work seen on a 74 Sharps or such and certainly not fine English scroll. This I would have to farm out.
But I have to be able to hold my head up in what I do. The craze toward recreating poor workmanship I see as counter productive.
The Beck that I got to look at in Cody had better wood finish inside the patch box cavity than the scratched background on the second gun pictured here. If Beck could do it then, inside the patch box, it could be done by the Europeans in the carving back ground.
Unless the scratching was remnants of shading of some sort I just can't see it being that way originally. There is no reason I can think of for it to look that way. This is the question that needs to be asked. Why is it like this?

Bed time
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Long John

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1618
  • Give me Liberty or give me Death
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2009, 03:56:22 PM »
I have watched this thread for a few days now and I have to agree with Dan.  I don't think it is sloppy workmanship.  I think something else has happened to the gun in the past 300 odd years that has resulted in the look we see.  I spent a summer working for an old German tool and die maker, Klaus.  Next summer at the Fair ask me about "ein perfecht haff inch coob of schteel".

Best Regards,

JMC

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2009, 04:06:46 PM »
Dan, thanks for your thoughts. I find many of your points valid and thought provoking. I wake today with new vigour, to go at the keyboard with renewed ferocity.

What you say about the discerning collector is spot-on. They may not want a scratchy rough cob of a gun. That is not my intent, either.

I am not making guns for the high end collector. I am making guns to please ME. I am the one putting in the time to learn how to do this, to see how things were done. I know I can do the fine work, but I don't know if I can do a workmanlike or simple gun. I am trying to do that with my current gun, but my tendency is to always finish up fine, straighten out he curves, flatten the humps, etc. This is a purely personal journey, but one that some folks may be interested in, and others will be appalled.
I believe there is tremendous value in studying original work, even replicating it, to understand more about it and the men who made it. While we cannot go back and talk to them, we can get a glimpse of how they worked and thought by emulating their art, their architecture, and yea, even their toolmarks. I want to end up with a gun that looks like it could have been made back in the day. That is my goal. Not a highly polished and refined fusil, but an everyday working gun, one that may have been pushed out of the shop to pay the bills. This is not sloppy work, but workmanlike, utilitarian, functional, with limited decoration.... and even toolmarks.

Dan, you are talking about high art guns, and I am talking about everyday working guns. You cannot apply the same rules from one to the other. each has its own set of parameters. High end engraving would look out of place on an early American long rifle. Kentucky engraving would look just as out of place on an English SxS shotgun.

Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Offline Jim Kibler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4473
    • Personal Website
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2009, 04:59:13 PM »
Dan,

In my opinion, when done welll, leaving tool marks does not detract from the appearance of a gun, but can actually add to it.  Look at some of the work of Eric Kettenburg, Mark Silver, Frank House, Wallace Gusler and others.  when they produce a gun and choose to finish it in a manner that tool marks are left, the results are often fantastic to my eye.  There has been a definite trend for some to try to work more in the manner of the original gunsmiths.  I think those with interest in these guns are becoming educated as well.  It seems work of this type is being well received.  Not because people force themselves to or think they should, but because it looks good and has appeal! 

Online rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2009, 06:40:29 PM »
I deleted my post as I was not adding anything material (examples) to the discussion.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 06:59:54 PM by richpierce »
Andover, Vermont

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2009, 07:06:51 PM »
Pretty much every aspect has been covered, in my opinion....

Unless anyone has some more pics of early work that shows tool marks or lack thereof. I'd personally like to see some American work. I have the Met pics, obviously, but lack detailed photos of American arms.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 07:08:03 PM by Acer Saccharum »
Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

54Bucks

  • Guest
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2009, 07:17:43 PM »
 I would like to seperate the wood from the metal.Considering that no one can estimate the original condition of a 2-300 year old stock when it was new,let alone account for that many years of storage/useage.
 Does any one have any factual info on how original forge welded barrels had the flats applied? Swamped or straight. Were they simply using some version of the old hand powered sharpening wheel or a slightly improved water powered version used  in one of those small barrel works of the time. The one picture showing barrel marks appeared to be ground in some fashion with a rough wheel perpendicular to the bore.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2009, 07:56:14 PM »
<snip>
Dan, you are talking about high art guns, and I am talking about everyday working guns. You cannot apply the same rules from one to the other. each has its own set of parameters. High end engraving would look out of place on an early American long rifle. Kentucky engraving would look just as out of place on an English SxS shotgun.


I know high art guns. However:
But there are a lot of "working guns" that are well made and don't look like a High School shop class reject.
Lots of American rifles then and now have crude inletting or rough/round barrel channels but have good workmanship, carving etc. The time saved in inletting the barrel could be spent making the exterior better. The round barrel channel will not shoot any better than the round one is all likelyhood.
There were often reasons for this that are not apparent to us.
During the heavy western migration of the 1840s Sam Hawken stated they could not make guns fast enough the demand was just too great.
I then assume there are a lot of rifles that went out of the Hawken Shop at that time that we would not identify as "Hawken" if unsigned and I am sure the were not stamped. Why would they stamp them?

There has to be a certain discipline.
"Working guns", barn guns and society in general.
In the mid-18th century almost everything of quality made of wood had some embellishment. Guns in Europe in 1740 and before were carved the gunsmiths/gunstockers that immigrated, especially Germans, were used to making carved guns. It was expected.  
In the 18th-19th century they all had to work. They were not toys or wall hangers. "To good/expensive to used"? See the Antes swivel. This gun probably cost 2 1/2-3 times what a good quality single rifle did. It did not get worn as it is hanging on a wall.
I posted some photos of a Don King swivel breech rifle that is heavily inlaid and ornately engraved. The man that owns it shot a deer with it last year. He has some of my guns and most are either used often or have been. He is not a hang it on the wall or hide it in the vault collector.
I consider rifles like the Haymaker rifle to be baseline rifles of the 1770s, all the parts are there and it has a minimum of carving. Look at the English Indian trade rifle of 1780. It was a complete rifle, rod pipes, buttplate, carving, patch box. It was *expected*, its what a rifle looked like. The natives knew that rifles had patchboxes and were carved. How would they come to this conclusion? Because the rifles they were getting from American sources were carved and had patchboxes.

"Barn Guns".
In earlier times what you owned and what you wore denoted your station is life.
People did not wear torn blue jeans to school when I was in my teens. You did not wear blue jeans at all they would have SENT YOU HOME if you appeared in them. I and a great many others got new clothes about ONCE A YEAR when school started because you didn't attend school dressed like a street person. When I was a kid in grade school I looked forward to school starting because I got new clothes and shoes to wear. You put on your "school clothes" and went to school, when you got home you immediately changed clothes so they did not get dirty or torn or scuffed.
Did my dad have the cheapest gun he could find? No. He had good quality stuff, Colt, Winchester and LC Smith etc. He was a construction worker in 1960 making 1.75 an hour. A 50 or 100 dollar gun was a lot of time with a shovel or pouring concrete.
The only people that looked like bums were bums or people actually working a dirty job. Kids simply did not run around in dirty clothing with big tears in the knees and pockets. The neighbors would have seen this and their mother would have been appalled that her children appeared in public wearing clothing of this sort.
Now the kids think its cool. My kids never dressed that way and still don't.
In the 18th century it was even worse. "The clothes make the man" was not idle chatter. If you dressed like a gentleman you were assumed to be one. If you dressed like a bum (not to be confused with someone actually working a job like a wagoner, blacksmith etc) in public the same applied.
So if you had a gun you had the best thing you could possibly afford. The individual who paraded around with a rifle that looked like it was built by cross eyed blacksmith's apprentice is telling everyone he is the bottom rung of the social classes. He would likely have left it home a lot probably in the barn so visitors to his house would not see it and realize he was too poor to afford a good (not best just good) quality gun.
The hunter could kill enough deer with a cheap musket to buy a good rifle in fairly quick order.
Yes there were a lot of poor people with low incomes in America and on the frontier. But they tried not to dress the part. One of the ways of bettering oneself was to make sure you did not LOOK poor.
We see quotes from the 1750s that the rifle was the biggest part of the poor frontiersman/farmers estate. It was the most valuable thing the family owned in many cases.
So I feel the barn gun thing is largely a figment on people's imagination or it WAS something that was left in the barn and only used for shooting hogs or beef for slaughter. A person certainly could not appear at a militia muster in most areas with one and not face a certain degree of scorn or pity.
They did not consider low quality clothing, guns or anything else to be "cool" because these things made a poor impression on others and did not last as well as well made items. Wearing worn out or cast off clothing told people you were likely a servant, probably an indentured servant and perhaps a runaway if you were unknown to them. Not a good first impression if traveling from place to place. Could result in the sheriff detaining you for further "inspection".
One way to stay on the low end if the ladder was to look the part.
Got to get out and find another furry woodland creature to shoot.
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

keweenaw

  • Guest
Re: Tool marks on original guns?
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2009, 08:24:47 PM »
Guys, we need to face the fact that some pretty ho-hum work came out of the shops of some of the old masters which means that either they worked at different finish levels or allowed their journeymen to do so.  I'm thinking particularly of Dickert.  Some of his rifles are real masterpieces, including the one JTR bought last year.  One well known student of the period even remarked to me that JTR's rifle was so good it must have been made by one of Dickert's journeymen.  Others look like he got tired of working on them, slapped on the finish and got them out the door and a few of these don't have particularly great architecture.  I love Schreyer rifles.  Because Shumway did such a complete study we can see that his engraving varied from very good to pretty basic and while the rifles all have great architecture, he made some rifles with minimal carving and no patch box.  Last June I saw another of his rifles that hasn't been published - a late rifle, incised carved with lines that just screamed Schreyer but nothing special about it.

I remember reading a discussion on finishing violins and how some finishes that people thought might have been used by Strativarius and Guarnari, might take a couple of months to apply and cure and could only be done in the heat of the summer.  As other people in that discussion pointed out, those old masters weren't taking months to apply a finish - they were working for pasta not for posterity.  So too the old colonial gunmakers, no matter how good.

Tom