Don't Carve That Stock!

[IanH]

This is not what I see at all. If you copy the carving as well as the old timers did it you'll end up with an outstanding rifle.

I'll only copy the well-done stuff. There is a lot of mediocre to poor carving to weed through, though, if not exclusively viewing examples from collections exclusive to true masters.

 

[flntlokr01]

If most originals were indeed "crude," and if we strive for period correctness, who is more accurate. The crude carver, or the Picasso of all things carved?

And a rhetorical question, what's the reason behind originals being mostly crude. They had the same tools, and the ability to take the time and the ability to do intricate work. So why be crude about it.

I suspect that a lot of early carving was done by bored fellows personalizing their guns while sitting around campfires, so wouldn't necessarily be very well done.

 

[Ghost 23]

Haven't carved a gun before but have serveral other things.

Art is about the subjective, not the objective.

Id rather own a rifle lovingly but crudely carved by a woodsman who depended upon it to survive, rathar than a work of art made by a master and sold to the highest bidder. You may not, and thats just fine.

The cross in the metal of my old axe isn't intricate or entirely perfect, but its my axe, and I like it. I enjoyed doing it, and i got to learn and grow from it.

I totally get what youre saying, but why give that advice? This breed of elitism keeps people from enjoying and trying hobbys. Its their property, give them advice on how to do it, dont tell them not to because they arent good enough.

 

[Cavalry Joe]

Any way you slice it (no pun intended)… It is YOUR gun and YOU are the only one that need be satisfied with the results.

 

[James Kibler]

I would suggest studying original work. Few take this advice. This doesn't mean thumbing through a book and calling it good. It requires hours and hour and hours of study. Break the design apart and try to understand how it was made. Start to appreciate what works well to the eye and what doesn't. I honestly don't know why few choose to study originals. It shows in most of the carving I see done today.

 

[The Appalachian]

If only CNC machines were invented centuries earlier and as common as coffee makers.........

 

[11th corps]

Carving and other embellishments do not make a gun more accurate.
Guns that fit and shoot straight are the goal.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Carving and other embellishments do not make a gun more accurate.
Guns that fit and shoot straight are the goal.

Which is not the point of the discussion.

 

[springfield art]

The exact same advise could be dispensed appropriately to many gun makers across the past 500 years. In fact, I keep researching original work looking for carving patterns to copy and have found the majority of the work to be fairly crude, not precision work done by an expert specialist.

I enjoy the sleek, un-cluttered, clean lines of an un-carved gun. Carved are great IF DONE TASTEFULLY!

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

I'll only copy the well-done stuff. There is a lot of mediocre to poor carving to weed through, though, if not exclusively viewing examples from collections exclusive to true masters.

I have seen very few poorly carved antique rifles. The shop master would never let them out the door.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

I suspect that a lot of early carving was done by bored fellows personalizing their guns while sitting around campfires, so wouldn't necessarily be very well done.

100% folklore.

 

[IanH]

Someone earlier wrote about rather seeing a good design carved poorly than a poor design carved well, and I couldn't agree more. I also agree "less is more" when carving, or engraving, but less really is more only if the design is spot-on.

The thing I can't go for is a full-curl above grade fancy stock which has been so covered up with engraved inlays, carving, wire, and a patchbox that covers the whole buttstock that almost none of the wood can be seen, and what IS visible clashes with the decorations.


When embellishing a gun, you have to know when to quit.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

If only CNC machines were invented centuries earlier and as common as coffee makers.........

Does this relate to this thread in some way?

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Someone earlier wrote about rather seeing a good design carved poorly than a poor design carved well, and I couldn't agree more. I also agree "less is more" when carving, or engraving, but less really is more only if the design is spot-on.

The thing I can't go for is a full-curl above grade fancy stock which has been so covered up with engraved inlays, carving, wire, and a patchbox that covers the whole buttstock that almost none of the wood can be seen, and what IS visible clashes with the decorations.


When embellishing a gun, you have to know when to quit.

I find that exceptionally curly wood tends to hide any kind of decoration. I prefer wood with no curl and exceptional decoration.

 

[PathfinderNC]

100% folklore.

Carving up a gun stock while sitting around a campfire? A recipe for greatness.

 

[TobJohn]

Are completely uncarved rifles from pre 1800 historically correct? For example, would a Kibler colonial with no carving be right, or was there a base level of carving that the kits don't have?

 

[The Appalachian]

Carving up a gun stock while sitting around a campfire? A recipe for greatness.

Well, look at the scratchings on period powder horns. Nothing short of cartoonish cat scratches if viewed through an artists eye. We can easily say most of them were done sitting around a campfire....yet we often bend over backwards to duplicate that exact look.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Well, look at the scratchings on period powder horns. Nothing short of cartoonish cat scratches if viewed through an artists eye. We can easily say most of them were done sitting around a campfire....yet we often bend over backwards to duplicate that exact look.

We’re discussing contemporary gun carving though

 

[Coinneach]

My dear old Dad did checkering on modern rifles for about 30 yrs. , as a hobby , because he loved doing it. He had a small bench set up next to the furnace in the cellar. He would checker many evenings after work . I watched him work , but I had no desire to do the hours of repetitious lines it took to do checkering. He did. His work was flawless.

Our problem is that nowadays most of us are time-poor even in retirement, to learn and develop the necessary skillset fine carving a wood stock.
I'll do a little incise "carving" mostly shallow straight lines along a fore stock or cheek piece but that's about it for me, I prefer a plain middle class guys ML long arm to anything fancied up.

 

[The Appalachian]

We’re discussing contemporary gun carving though

Yes....based on what though?

Compared to what though?

You're opinion or real world examples of original work be they good or bad?

I mean, "contemporary" covers everything from the mediocre amateur work you're condemning here to actual craftsman created art work to what I consider fake CNC machined carvings the furthest thing possible from hand carved art.

If we are traditionalist here, should we not understand how and why the originals were done and emulate that in our work?

Goofy characters on powder horns are ok, but imperfect carvings on rifle stocks are not?

What's the base line to judge this by?