Trends in longrifle building

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

The ease of entry into building rifles is allowing new great talents to emerge.. a good thing.  It also allows less than quality work to get into the market.  I think the emergence of the gunmaker's schools, books, videos and fairs, the CLA and web forums, especially this one, are important and effective in improving the overall quality to some standard of acceptable quality. It is important to continue this work....not to get into some exclusive certification/guilding, but to keep confronting the quality issues and to keep encouraging better skills and better products.....

As a hobbyist, I and many others would still be building slabsided baseball bats that might not really be safe it weren't for all of the teaching and encouraging that goes on within the Contemporary builders and both contemporary and original collectors community.  I can't pretend to the artistic quality of the leaders, but I am inspired by their work to continue to decvelop my skills, to buy quality parts and to seek out courses and coaching.....and my guns are safer than they would be without all the sharing.

It is important that we who are learning support the businesses of those who have reached pinnacles and are able to make their work economically important.  It would be a shame to see any of our best quit the field because of economics and markets flooded with less than quality.....so keep the trend toward teaching and critiquing celebrating...and buying good and great work!!!.... Mine will continue to grace my own fireplace/gunroom and I am grateful to you all that I can even do that!!!

[bama]

Jim I can only speak for myself and how I have grown with this sport over the past 30 years. I started out with a CVA Big Bore Mountain Rifle. It shot well but  had a terrible lock. I got to wanting a Long Rifle and in the early 70's there was not much of a choice but there was Dixie Gun Works. I purchased some parts and managed to build a rifle that did shoot but that was about it. I learned that I needed to learn a lot more but not much info was available. Along came the Fox Fire books, Shumway, Recreating the American Long rifle, decent parts kits and I managed to learn a little more. Then WKU came into my life which helped my learning curve and the opportunity to see some very nice originals. The CLA show has been a wonderful opportunity to see many rifles I have only seen pictures of. The net has made much available.

I probably will never build a rifle that sets the world on fire. My goal when I started was to build a good usable rifle, I think that I have come pretty close to that goal. Now I want to be able to build a Jim Parker rifle that has the feel and look of a good original. I agree with Gary in that fact that I don't think I will be able to do this until I can replicate a good original. So there lies my quest. The one thing I know for sure is I don't know enough so I just keep plugging away.

Thanks for a great thread. Thanks to you for sharing your work and thanks to everyone on this board that shares their knowledge.

[Captchee]

I would agree with many others here ..
 Information is a big one . We have so much more that’s easily attainable. Batch in the 1970  when I started , we didn’t have that . What we could get , often had to be ordered .
 Also think the information is more correct then ever .
  Browning , bluing and in the bright are all options  that pre date each other . I remember a time when   it seemed like everything was browned . From  the Bess  - lemans .  I also think  a lot of the processes have changed . today we buy  the products to  what we do . . .
 Same thing with ear sights on smooth bores .  We now have evidence that  many carried them  and that out information in the 60 and 70 had little base past what we knew at the time

The simi custom assembly market has also blossomed . Where not to long ago , basically you had the CVA, jukar  and a few others who all made the same basic  rifle .
 I also think we have become alittle anal about our quality of building .
  Making them more for show then for actual  quality of use .

 I also see the same trend in copying . To me that’s what it is . Plain and simple . While I to understand  that  reproducing a given work  helps one understand  how to do said work . Lets also understand that  when the apprentices of old step out on their own . They started producing many times a distinctive  look . Not something strictly copied from their masters .
 So today we have those who   look for and want a copied historical correct piece . The more exsact the better .
 I see nothing wrong with that . But  I think folks should realize that  100 years from now . What you build may just be called a copy of a rifle made by X.
  Thus my fear is that  the evolution will seemingly have stopped .

that’s not to say one should not do things faithfully to those period pieces .
 What im getting at is maybe being to exact is not a good thing

[rich pierce]

I love this topic; it's the sort of thing I think about.

I'm not surprised as some are that the quality of current builds does not often exceeed what was done 20 or more years ago.  Folks who dedicate themselves to the art and craft and have the chance to handle lots of originals are going to shine if they have talent and desire, regardless of the generation.  What I see more of now is a real dedication to getting it right, and customizing parts to fit the build.  The recent Contemporary blogspot photos of customized locks was really inspiring.  Some of that comes from the desire to make "bench copies" as referred to above.  The thoughts posted on the benefits and limitations of that approach were really insightful and made me think "What the heck am I doing sometimes? Am I ready to graduate?"  It was a needed kick in the pants.  Acer's Fair Gonne is a great example of new synthesis that "fits".  EK has provided a lot of inspiration there.

Today many builders don't have the opportunity to see and handle originals.  If you look back to the best builders of the past, they all handled originals.  Colonial Williamsburg.  Earl Lanning, Bivins, Chambers, the House brothers, the whole Pennsylvania cadre of builders who were dopinmg great work in the 70's and 80's were all handling, restoring, collecting originals.  The folks who revived the Hawken and really "did 'em right" tended to have access to originals.

Many other builders have worked off of books in the past and the internet now, and expect or hope to excel, but it's a hard slog.  Photos lie.  The carving looks deeper because the light casts a shadow, or other subtleties are lost or not conveyed.

Today folks expect building to be easy and it often is, because of the quality of kits.  30 years ago, building a good, reliable, safe shooter from scratch was not a given.  It was an accomplishment.  Because forums like this exist, we see questions on this and other forums from new folks that go like this:  "I bought my parts.  What do I do now?"  Folks are less likely to find somebody to help them, be it Chuck Dixon at his shop or whatever, than to inquire online.  I get good advice online, but not the same as when I take a gun to an expert and hand it to them.

[SR James]

 

   Thus my fear is that  the evolution will seemingly have stopped .

that’s not to say one should not do things faithfully to those period pieces .
 What im getting at is maybe being to exact is not a good thing

It depends on what you mean by evolution.  I take it you're referring to evolution within a traditional framework, which is a good thing. However, evolution doesn't always take you in a good direction.
A number of years ago, many Native American groups began to relearn traditional arts, such as pottery making.  In some areas, such as the Southwest, traditions had continued relatively unbroken.  At first the emphasis was on traditional techniques, styles and designs.  Over time, a significant number of artists began to change all of these things.  Today, one can purchase very expensive pots made by well known artists whose work shows little resemblance to the traditional pottery of his or her ancestors.  Such pots are very beautiful in their own right, but have "evolved"  to the point where they are no longer traditional.  I wouldn't care to see handbuilt longrifles go the same way.  Its not a matter of "crossing a line" because it's not a line at all but a broad, transitional zone  from traditional to no longer traditional .  The extreme ends are easy to distinguish from one another but some times it's not so easy in the middleground.
I suppose some purists would be critical of the House brothers' "Woodbury School" whereas I see it as a perfect example of evolution within a traditional framework.  On the other hand, I recently saw a Lancaster-style rifle on auction that was very well made, with great architecture, fitting, carving, etc.  The problem was the carving was oak leaves and acorns.

[Acer Saccharum]

I see us in a revival period presently. The new CLA publication "American Tradition" is a sign that this revival trend is serious, and quality work is on the rise. Quality, authenticity and artistry are of prime importance. Hand in hand with this, the market has become more demanding. We are in a new 'Golden Age'.

Tom

[rich pierce]

Accoutrements have shown a more marked improvement in recent decades than longrifles, perhaps because improvement was needed.  Back in the 70's and 80's we'd see a lot of fantasy horns with natural looking bugling elk on them and such, with less work being done that emulated originals.  The Honorable Company of Horners and others have really shone.

The important thing going forward is to pass it on to a younger generation.  We have a few "under 40" makers of longrifles who are really going to knock our socks off as they continue to develop.

[Acer Saccharum]

I'm willing to have my socks knocked off...bring it on!

[Stophel]

The trend I see is the desire for earlier and earlier guns.

[Captchee]

 James . When it comes to  American Indian  examples.
 We dictate what is traditional .  What we consider traditional also is always evolving.  .
 Our culture is constantly changing and moving  as such  so are our traditions .

 What I was trying to get at with the rifles is that  if we as gunsmiths ,  hobby smiths  or just the  average person who build s , do not  further our base .  We then become stagnant .  
 Think about this .
  How did the American long rifle come about ?
 Basically, smiths of the time  used what  they had learned from their masters  . Kept some of the influences but added a lot of their own .
 What come of that was something  distinctly  American.

 When we look at  many of the   more well known smiths today .  We see that they also are capable of doing just that .  IE taking the past , adding in some of the present  and giving the world something while reprehensive of the past . Its still distinctly their own ..

 If we do not do that . Then what we have done IMO is just copied the past . Again nothing wrong with that . But   I believe that all it shows is  how well we can copy .

 Currently  there is a discussion on this board about carvings .
 Now I have yet red the days posts . But as of this morning , no one had mentioned  doing your own carvings ? Why not .
Lets say a person was to study Rococo  patterns  . Then produces there own Rococo  design . That design becomes theirs , even though its base is  200 years old .

 Same thing goes with  engravings .  The engraving done of American rifles is distinct . Both in its designs and its quality  when compared to engraving  of European  smiths of the same time frame .
 Now would  that  type of heavy relief engraving fit on  say an Emil rifle Nope .
 But  should we look down on those who would put it on  a  rifle they made today
 I think not . The reason being is that  the rifle is now distinctive to that person . 150 years from now  it may just define  the person who did it .

 Im fear is that we have fallen into a  phase where much of what is produced is  really copies . Thus I wonder   if in the future , our times of today and the wonderful ensample we produce , may  be looked at as a time of stagnation

 The other thing that I find done today that  we didn’t  or at least did not hear much of . Is the coping of  proofing marks  and such  as a way to try and  make the most historically accurate piece .
 To me , there just seems something wrong with that . Possibly a step to far .

 I don’t know . Again im just talking here

[Jim Kibler]

Captchee,

I agree with much of what your are saying, but I think there is a little more to consider.  Being original in design is not easy.  In fact, it can be very difficult.  Unless someone has a very sound historical understanding and appreciation of the longrifle, there is a high probablility they will end up with a pile of mess if they try to be completely original.  Don't get me wrong, I think this is the ultimate, but it requires a strong foundation and a great deal of hard work developing the necessary skills.  This is not for everyone.  As has been mentioned previously, copies  have their place.   It does seem as though we are in a cycle that emphasizes historical correctness, perhaps at the expense of creativity though.  Just one more bit of rambling and then I'll quit...  You mentioned the discussion about carving design...  Someone in this thread suggested the possibility of using designs on Viking ships for inspiration in longrifle decoration.  This probably sounded crazy to some, but if done with enough skill and creativity, a succesful product could be the result.  Historical correctness aside, there really is no limit to what is used in the design of a longrifle.  What really matters is how the ideas are applied.

James . When it comes to  American Indian  examples.
 We dictate what is traditional .  What we consider traditional also is always evolving.  .
 Our culture is constantly changing and moving  as such  so are our traditions .

 What I was trying to get at with the rifles is that  if we as gunsmiths ,  hobby smiths  or just the  average person who build s , do not  further our base .  We then become stagnant .  
 Think about this .
  How did the American long rifle come about ?
 Basically, smiths of the time  used what  they had learned from their masters  . Kept some of the influences but added a lot of their own .
 What come of that was something  distinctly  American.

 When we look at  many of the   more well known smiths today .  We see that they also are capable of doing just that .  IE taking the past , adding in some of the present  and giving the world something while reprehensive of the past . Its still distinctly their own ..

 If we do not do that . Then what we have done IMO is just copied the past . Again nothing wrong with that . But   I believe that all it shows is  how well we can copy .

 Currently  there is a discussion on this board about carvings .
 Now I have yet red the days posts . But as of this morning , no one had mentioned  doing your own carvings ? Why not .
Lets say a person was to study Rococo  patterns  . Then produces there own Rococo  design . That design becomes theirs , even though its base is  200 years old .

 Same thing goes with  engravings .  The engraving done of American rifles is distinct . Both in its designs and its quality  when compared to engraving  of European  smiths of the same time frame .
 Now would  that  type of heavy relief engraving fit on  say an Emil rifle Nope .
 But  should we look down on those who would put it on  a  rifle they made today
 I think not . The reason being is that  the rifle is now distinctive to that person . 150 years from now  it may just define  the person who did it .

 Im fear is that we have fallen into a  phase where much of what is produced is  really copies . Thus I wonder   if in the future , our times of today and the wonderful ensample we produce , may  be looked at as a time of stagnation

 The other thing that I find done today that  we didn’t  or at least did not hear much of . Is the coping of  proofing marks  and such  as a way to try and  make the most historically accurate piece .
 To me , there just seems something wrong with that . Possibly a step to far .

 I don’t know . Again im just talking here

[jwh1947]

Good thread. Acer mentions some builders getting back to basics.  Some lineages never left.  Living proof here.  I was taught by Pennsylvanians in the old traditional manner, as they were taught by their masters.  That, to me, carrys spirit.  None of these guys are given to glitter, but rather more focused on structural and historical intergrity and on doing work that is neat.

By the way, the masters at Jacobsburg (Easton, PA area) Plantation, the old Henry gunworks, are running a new basic gunsmithing course with an updated curriculum starting in March.  Slots may still be open.  Otherwise, get on list for next run.  This time tuition is $750 and all parts for a Henry style full-stock are supplied.  If you stay on par, you walk out the class with your own, hand-built hunting rifle.  The instruction is essentially free, and it is priceless.  Wayne.

[Acer Saccharum]

If you don't follow tradition, you don't have an American longrifle. All of what we do in the world at large is based on a previous example, a building up of ideas and expressions, culminating in a product or design. If you create something entirely new, not based on tradition, you have a piece of art, but not necessarily a traditional American long rifle. I think to call a rifle by that name, it's got to fall within certain parameters.

There is naught wrong with a completely made up design, but it's not based on tradition. The heritage and tradition of the American longrifle is what turns my switch on. Not butterflies, Corvettes or roses on an American long gun. This is just my personal preference.

I see a trend toward more traditional pieces. I like this. This is what excites me. Who made these guns? where did the makers come from? what were their beliefs, what training did they have? Fascinating stuff. To me.

[Jim Kibler]

American Longrifle...  So what's in a name anyway.  Take any contemporary styled rifle.  I've built them.  Not an American Longrifle?  Where do you draw the line?  Makes no difference to me.  I say that someone with enough ability could decorate a longrifle with butterflies or roses (not sure about the corvettes that you couldn't help but to like! 

[B Shipman]

John Bivins once said there are three trends in gunbuilding. NEW SCHOOL, INTERPRETATION, and DOCUMENTARY OR BENCH COPIES. All have equal merit. He was a a new school maker as is Hershall House. Yet both are compatabile with tradition. Originality is great, but only within that parameter. And you must have an understanding of that parameter. If you work within a time and place or even a maker, you interpret. This is what most of us do. But you must be conversant with what you are doing. Making a documentary or bench copy literally means having the original in hand. Otherwise you will have a "Chinese copy". Personally, making a bench copy is the most difficult for it forces me me to develop skills that I'm not good at. And doing something exactly rather than what I might do is vastly more time consuming. You learn.

[Captchee]

well said shipman.

[Ian Pratt]

  I was reading this on the back of a cereal box last night and it seemed to pertain to the topic at hand, thought I'd share it with you all -

  "... So how then does the longrifle truly evolve? Do we feel that interpreting original work by adding one's own personal "spin" into the mix can be regarded as evolution - or is using personalized  traditional details and styles of work in a way that "makes sense"( however well researched) to come up with a new take on something old simply stylistic rehashing?
   Probably both, but where is the line drawn? Looking back at the longrifle say to the 1760's then forward to the mid 1800's we can see a basically logical progression in function and form, an evolution of the longrifle. But unless you put a cap on the timeline toward the end of our favorite era, carrying on through time up to the present the longrifle has evolved (mutated, some would suggest) into the breechloading cartridge gun. Perhaps we're not looking for this degree of evolution?
  So what form will the evolution take? If we are able to accept the longrifle purely as art, maybe there is a new market here for performance artists or people who throw handfuls of sand in the air and call it sculpture. Just how much abstract interpretation is the longrifle buying public willing to accept?
  And if the evolution is not in the artistic sense, then what? Surely there have been advances in the materials we use to build a rifle , not just in the quality therof but in the way that they are produced.  How about the actual construction of the gun itself? Can the methods of it's production somehow be advanced to where it could be said that an evolution has taken place? Has it happened already? Does any of this need to happen?..."

        

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Or can it even help but happen?? 

[Jim Kibler]

In my mind it's really quite simple.  If it looks good people will want it.  This could be a documentary copy or a rifle with butterflies, birds and snails in the decoration.  There will be those who want a very traditional form and there will be others who don't care.  There will also be cycles of experimentation and those of a more conservative approach.  What will always be true is that the rifles in demand will be those with asthetic appeal.  There's a limitless possibility of what can be created. 

[Ian Pratt]

  If it looks good people will want it . Somewhat irresponsible.  Taken literally this statement gives those of us who don't know any better the green light to go ahead and artistically start kicking the walls down and commence to hurling handfuls of sand into the wind   - LOOK MA !IT'S A LONGRIFLE!  Sure, one or two people are gonna pay to see it, but then I'm stuck with a mountain of sand that I can't eat, at least not much daily.
  The other scenarios would definitely be limited by the parameters that Bill mentioned, and while the possibilities of new combinations may be near infinite, the truth of the matter is if it ain't a longrifle, it ain't a longrifle. 

[Jim Kibler]

 If it looks good people will want it . Somewhat irresponsible.  Taken literally this statement gives those of us who don't know any better the green light to go ahead and artistically start kicking the walls down and commence to hurling handfuls of sand into the wind   - LOOK MA !IT'S A LONGRIFLE!  Sure, one or two people are gonna pay to see it, but then I'm stuck with a mountain of sand that I can't eat, at least not much daily.
  The other scenarios would definitely be limited by the parameters that Bill mentioned, and while the possibilities of new combinations may be near infinite, the truth of the matter is if it ain't a longrifle, it ain't a longrifle.  

No risk no reward!  Thought we went through this business about names!  Think about the people who have pushed the limits in this business.  They're the ones who are often viewed as some of the best.  Don't think they've had to eat much sand.  Ok, I'm done!  Think I've had about all I can take of this topic.  Wonder who the fool was who started all this?

[J. Talbert]

Well you can't argue with taste,  but I guess you can argue semantics 'til the cows come home.

I may not be able to define the boundary in words, but I know what I like and what I don't.
That's going to be different for everyone, I suppose, no matter what it's called.

Jeff

[Ian Pratt]

 No argument here. We all know what we like and don't like. I think it can be difficult to put into words, but maybe becomes easier if you start asking yourself WHY you like something or not. Could be something as simple as a small detail or two, or as large as the big picture that all the details merge to create, there are REASONS you like or dislike it, and the reasons will come in the form of words.
   I must have missed the part about names. I won't mention any names either but I can tell you that historically there has been plenty of sand eating among the envelope pushing types, not because they had ordered a truckload of it to implement some inane plan to experiment with wind sculpture, but simply because it was cheap and filling and could be eaten cold.   

[Ben Gorey]

Interesting.  Southgate's work during his lifetime was accepted and praised as an example and continuation of the traditional Kentucky/Penna rifle. His interpretation of the traditional rifle for practical use.  In the mean time, we have become enlightened and Southgate's work is denigrated.  By what standard ?

[Acer Saccharum]

If we choose to stay within a certain traditional time period, it is to work within regional and believable artistry of the time. To take it farther, into the fanciful contemporary gun, this is no longer the traditional long rifle. Certainly, its roots go back to the tradition, but it has long lost its appeal to me. I am a traditionalist, if I must define myself. If I feel the need to do high art, I will do a European styled piece, or a Kuntz inspired gun.

Already, I find that I am painting myself into a corner. But I find by running my mouth beyond my comfort zone, I learn about myself more than if I kept my mouth shut. "Did I say that?", to quote Don Stith.

Jim Kibler, I find that your work amazingly spans the contemporary and the traditional, something I had not thought possible.

Tom