• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Don't Carve That Stock!

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
...Unless you are good at it.
I've seen a lot of well made rifles, some even with very nice metal engravings, but then come the photos of the cheek piece or whatever, with some terribly done carvings (or more like attempts at carving).
Bad carving can absolutely ruin your fine gun.
Take the time to develop the skill, know your skill level and proceed with caution. It's better to leave it plain sometimes, honestly.
Cheers.

It's your gun, carve it with a hatchet if that's what floats your boat.
 
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.
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.
 
We tend to put the original gunsmiths on a pedestal. There were some who were truly masters but if the Guilds had been set up in the colonies I have to wonder how many would have ever become masters. I love going through The Rifles of Colonial America and wish I had the time to actually read the books cover to cover. If all you do is look at the pictures your missing a wealth of info. Shumway often points out the failings of the original gunsmiths. I by no means consider myself to be a master but I try to do some simple carving and engraving because I am one who learns by doing. I make mistakes but I also learn from those mistakes. Now that I only have about 60% use of my right hand I am having to learn new ways of doing things but I'm going to keep trying, I'm kinda stubborn when it comes to things like that.
 
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.
There is a distinction between mechanics and artists. A gunsmith is, IMO, first and initially a mechanic. The inclination and understanding of art came later to each individual, or maybe never came at all. I can see and readily distinguish excellent carving by an artist but when it comes to doing I'm just a mechanic with no ability to create art and will probably never achieve it. Those who have worked hard at it and achieved it regularly tell people like me that all we need to do is practice. Maybe that's so, but on the other hand maybe they are gifted and just don't realize that not everyone is.
 
I have an artistic eye, most people don't, what looks like a mess to me looks like a work of art to them. I can see very small differences in symmetry.

I was mentoring a new bowmaker online, he was sending me pictures of his bow as he drew it on a tillering tree. He said his bow was shooting poorly, I looked at a picture of his drawn bow and told him "Your left limb is bending 1/8" too much 18" out from the handle". He said "how can you see that" and grabbed a ruler. He messaged me back and said " I still don't know how you picked that up but you were right". I can see stuff.

I taught several people how to carve detailed duck decoys, one friend didn't have an artist eye and carved all his ducks with a pointed beak like woody woodpecker, no matter how many times I showed him how a beak should be carved he never got it.

I haven't taken the time to learn how to properly carve a rifle, I know I could but my rifles end up with a lot of woods/hunting time on them along with all the dings and dents that goes with hunting thick brush for 20 years or more.

For me a plain rifle is best, my practice carvings on a block of wood were just "ok" and not near good enough in my opinion to put on a rifle. I am either too lazy or uninspired to put in the time to learn to do it right.
 
I am not an artistic person, and I definitely can't do any kind of carving. I almost butchered the stock of my shotgun trying to widen one of the inlets. I didn't even attempt to add any "art" to my gun, and I think it looks great. Just some sanding and Tru-oil. The photo makes it look like it has little dimples, but it's more or less smooth.

20230928_102239.jpg
 
Times are different now. It has always been my understanding that tradesmen passed on their skills through apprenticeships. A master gunsmith would take on a young fellow, possibly even a child, to live and work on the premises. The apprentice would learn the skills over a period of years via one-on-one teaching by the master craftsman. Total immersion. Children acquire skills, like language, music, or computer skills, while adults generally have to learn them through a stepwise or rule-based system. The trainee moves through his apprenticeship to journeyman status to mastery over a period of years. The trade in which he apprentices, whether gunmaking, blacksmithing, silverwork, saddlery, or whatever, was intended to be his profession, vocation, and life’s work. In my opinion, this may be the “secret” to the skill and artistry you see in so many antique longrifles.

For many of us now, gunmaking is a hobby, and we don’t get really serious with it until well into adulthood. There is no question that some people learn faster than others, some simply have a natural aptitude, and some people are turning out magnificent work. We have books, videos, and week-long workshops in which today’s masters try to teach the skills to us common folk, but there is no way this can compare to the apprenticeships of centuries past. I would agree with Mike Brooks regarding the outstanding workmanship shown by the old masters, which is not to be confused with repairs and restock jobs done by part-time gunsmiths on the frontier.

I think Mr. Kibler is working on a way to offer ornamental incised carving as an option on some of his rifle kits. Some folks don’t like this, expressing concern that the rifles will be “cookie cutter” duplicates of each other. Personally, I think it’s a great idea. For the average hobbyist, precise machine-made carving would be infinitely preferable to hand carving done poorly, and I do believe many of these rifles really need some carving. It seems only logical that the masters of long ago would have used basic patterns or templates for their carvings. The uniformity of design is how we recognize the different “schools” of longrifles, and even the work of individual smiths. Minor variations in the ornamental carvings, as well as the figure in the wood and the type of wood and metal finish, give the rifles their individuality. The same might be said about the rifles assembled from Jim Kibler’s kits.

This is an interesting discussion.

Notchy Bob
 
There is no good reason to practice on a good gun. It is best to stick to traditional patterns and themes. For me, a little well executed carving is much more attractive than too much that is not well executed.

Buy some maple from the home center. Practice on that. Make copies of good designs with your computer. Transfer them to the wood with carbon paper. Carve several practice patterns before you do the real stock. Get some drafting templates. French curves and ellipses get a lot of use on my bench. I can not do a good job free hand.

I suggest Kibler's carving practice kit. IT helps to touch a 3D casting of what you are trying to achieve. Kibler also has videos of him carving and talking. These are excellent. Once you have done several good copy carvings move on to you own designs. Or, continue to copy quality cohesive work. After a dozen or so practice patterns I was ready to move on to a real stock. It is much easier than doing quality checkering.

Kibler's machine made incised carving is to busy for my eye. However, he shared his work modifying the incised pattern to relief carving. That looked amazing. I mentioned the idea of a simplified machine cut pattern. My thought was to use it as a paint by numbers type of carving layout to be finished, or not, by the builder. I hope he offers that in the future.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes just a simply inscribed design carved well can be enough to add a nice touch of flair, so I do what I can with some confidence. I am not proficient in skills to carve the incised and relief carvings that I dream of doing one day. But staying in the boundaries of my skill level I can pull it off to some degree and not distract from the overall appearance of the gun.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9171.jpeg
    IMG_9171.jpeg
    3.2 MB
  • IMG_8969.jpeg
    IMG_8969.jpeg
    3.7 MB
  • IMG_7523.jpeg
    IMG_7523.jpeg
    2.9 MB
Sometimes just a simply inscribed design carved well can be enough to add a nice touch of flair, so I do what I can with some confidence. I am not proficient in skills to carve the incised and relief carvings that I dream of doing one day. But staying in the boundaries of my skill level I can pull it off to some degree and not distract from the overall appearance of the gun.
Well your cheating, you're an Artist. And a good one.
 
I had every intention of carving the Maple Woodsrunner I finely finished last month. Spent months carving on practice stocks of which I posted a number of photos. But I admit that I flat chickened out when the time came and I only did some incised lines. Down the road I might try relieving the CNC incised stock I have.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2523.jpeg
    IMG_2523.jpeg
    2.8 MB
  • IMG_2516.jpeg
    IMG_2516.jpeg
    771.2 KB
Back
Top