I've been sitting by the fire with a glass of icewater (with a generous splash of whiskey to kill the taste) and the thought occurred to me that although I've seen numerous instruction on the proper way to build a rifle, I don't think I've ever really seen a list of pitfalls to avoid. Perusal of RCA and the Kindig book both demonstrate page after page of what we now might consider mistakes. Should we copy these in order to be correct or should we use these examples to build a better gun than the oldtime smiths used to produce? I personally think that although some guns were built as a work of art, just as some of the period furniture, most guns as well as the furniture were built as a utilitarian object with a certain amount of embellishment in order to produce a more marketable product. Whether this really means anything to the examples that we reproduce I don't really know, but in the spirit of being the best we can there are certain things that I try to avoid (not that I always do). The things that I seem to notice the most are:
1. Lock panels that are too wide.
2. Sideplates do not fit with the design of the panel.
3. Buttplates not aligned with the centerline of the stock.
4. Forstock has too much wood left.
What can the members here add to that list?
As an additional thought..although not a problem of mine, are some of the “perfect” hobbyist guns really improper by virtue of the fact of being too good?
First we have no real idea who stocked some of these guns. They could be restocks if signed. They might be stocked by people with little or no training who were stocking muskets during the Revolution and decided to carry on afterwards even though they lacked the necessary skills or even the tools.
Then we have the spectre of wood that was not fully cured causing problems.
The idea that modern guns are too good is complete BS.
I am not going to degrade my work just because there are sloppily made originals. I don't like ugly guns.
Even guns we are pretty sure are as they were originally stocked we have no idea who may have "reworked" the gun at some later date to make the finish "better", add carving, change the patch box, add wire work, convert originally percussion guns to flint to make them worth more etc. We have no idea if the lock and perhaps other parts may have been changed during its service life or at some point in the 19th or 20th century perhaps by the local blacksmith.
Then we have wood damage/rot and wear and tear.
Not all makers are created equal then or now.
I have spent too many years working on my skills to decide that I should now make guns with sloppy inletting crappy lines and scrolls in the carving with flat spots just because there are poorly designed and executed originals that for all we know where stocked in 1920.
Sloppy work is sloppy work no matter WHEN its done.
In years past I have taken 3-4 guns that I made in the 60s and used for some time, apart and run the stocks through the wood stove because I was tired of looking at them.
Dan