Was going to post this as a reply in another query, but thought it would be too "off topic". The other topic concerned forend shaping and although I do like thin forends asre the amount of wood along side a bbl, 1/16" could be a modern exaggeration along w/ many other exaggerations that the modern builder incorporates into LRs. Let's say we're building a Lehigh LR and say to ourselves..."let's make it look more Lehigh" and this thinking is applied to other styles as well and the result are exaggerated styles of LRs unlike the originals. The quest for "modern technical perfection" is also an exaggeration unlike most originals and the modern day LR artists surely do surpass all but a very few original builders. I don't at all compare myself to the "modern artists" and their perfection, but have succumbed to all the other facets of modern technical perfection including overall quality which entails no visible glitches, scratches or imperfections, anyways as viewed by the purchaser. Don't know as to whether this "modern perfection" is prompted by the customer or is self inflicted by the builder...but it's definitely present in the LRs offered for sale today and in many of the MLers built and treasured by part-timers....Fred
-
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
Exaggeration?
- Thread starter Vaino
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Fred,
Sure seems like designs have progressed over the years. I was considerably involved with muzzleloaders back in the 70's and early 80's. Then played around with some a few years ago. Just this past summer I took interest again and started searching the internet, the first thing I noticed was the amount of guns that involved decorative carving. 30-40 years ago they were quite rare as I recall. Even at Friendship where one could get a good sampling of the offerings, carving was not seen much, although engraving was prevalent. The carving that was there was usually simple or way over done, nothing like I'm seeing now. Not the high quality engraving we're seeing today niether. Just the way I remember it.
I think it is human nature to improve on any process, take the most appealing features and bring them all under one roof.
When I read something about what an original builder did or didn't do, it's sort of meaningless. Trying to base an entire life's work on a few surviving examples is a bit nearsighted from an historical accuracy standpoint.
When it's all said and done, people are going to build what they want. And quite honestly, some of the guns I've seen on here and around the web are absolutely beautiful, and are probably doing more to sustain this hobby than anything else. Something more, and that is what keeps people interested. Are they historically accurate? Probably not. Are they appealing? Yes.
-Ron
Sure seems like designs have progressed over the years. I was considerably involved with muzzleloaders back in the 70's and early 80's. Then played around with some a few years ago. Just this past summer I took interest again and started searching the internet, the first thing I noticed was the amount of guns that involved decorative carving. 30-40 years ago they were quite rare as I recall. Even at Friendship where one could get a good sampling of the offerings, carving was not seen much, although engraving was prevalent. The carving that was there was usually simple or way over done, nothing like I'm seeing now. Not the high quality engraving we're seeing today niether. Just the way I remember it.
I think it is human nature to improve on any process, take the most appealing features and bring them all under one roof.
When I read something about what an original builder did or didn't do, it's sort of meaningless. Trying to base an entire life's work on a few surviving examples is a bit nearsighted from an historical accuracy standpoint.
When it's all said and done, people are going to build what they want. And quite honestly, some of the guns I've seen on here and around the web are absolutely beautiful, and are probably doing more to sustain this hobby than anything else. Something more, and that is what keeps people interested. Are they historically accurate? Probably not. Are they appealing? Yes.
-Ron
Capt. Fred
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,192
- Reaction score
- 0
I've been wondering the same thing Fred.
Especially regarding the forends. I've only seen maybe 3 or 4 originals up close and I've handled several of the Williamsburg guns at their shop so my "hands on" experience is limited.
There certainly were really thin forends done but some of the pictures I've seen of originals show a lot of "round" to the shape of the forend. I've gone to my drafting board and drawn several full scale sections of different barrel sizes and you just can't get a real rounded shape to a forend if it is only 1/16 inch(per side)wider than the barrel.
So, it is either a photographic distortion, which is certainly possible, or some of these guys built their guns with considerably more wood on the forends.
It's funny to me because, in my eye, the forend is one of the most important aspects of these guns and you just can't get any good info on them. Very few pictures and no dimensions of them in the books I've got. (Kindig and RCA)
Especially regarding the forends. I've only seen maybe 3 or 4 originals up close and I've handled several of the Williamsburg guns at their shop so my "hands on" experience is limited.
There certainly were really thin forends done but some of the pictures I've seen of originals show a lot of "round" to the shape of the forend. I've gone to my drafting board and drawn several full scale sections of different barrel sizes and you just can't get a real rounded shape to a forend if it is only 1/16 inch(per side)wider than the barrel.
So, it is either a photographic distortion, which is certainly possible, or some of these guys built their guns with considerably more wood on the forends.
It's funny to me because, in my eye, the forend is one of the most important aspects of these guns and you just can't get any good info on them. Very few pictures and no dimensions of them in the books I've got. (Kindig and RCA)
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
Many builders today leave their barrels buried in the barrel channel an their ram rod buried in the RR channel. the old times didn't. The barrels in the old days stuck way up there, hardly any sidewall at all. Same with the Ram rod, just an hint of channel. very easy to get a barrel shaped forestock using these methods.
As far as perfection goes, it never has been my forte'. I find some tool marks exceptable and probably desirable.
Quote: "I find some tool marks exceptable and probably desirable."
Definitely. When things are too perfect, they look as though they were done by a machine. I think the modern day enthusiast is looking for something with more of the human element, some slight miscuts and less than perfect features. For me, it is more genuine. It's like a gun that is reproduced perfectly on a mass scale. Like the T/C Hawken, beautiful gun, but they sort of burnt a lot of people out on it. I had two, a 45 and a 50, the coil sprung locks diminished the allure, and I lost interest in them pretty quick. I still like a true Hawken though.
Those T/C Hawkens were both bought as kits, the finished gun was around 180, the kit was 140 (about 30 years ago). It was literally a few evenings work to assemble one. took longer for the finish to dry.
-Ron
Definitely. When things are too perfect, they look as though they were done by a machine. I think the modern day enthusiast is looking for something with more of the human element, some slight miscuts and less than perfect features. For me, it is more genuine. It's like a gun that is reproduced perfectly on a mass scale. Like the T/C Hawken, beautiful gun, but they sort of burnt a lot of people out on it. I had two, a 45 and a 50, the coil sprung locks diminished the allure, and I lost interest in them pretty quick. I still like a true Hawken though.
Those T/C Hawkens were both bought as kits, the finished gun was around 180, the kit was 140 (about 30 years ago). It was literally a few evenings work to assemble one. took longer for the finish to dry.
-Ron
Capt. Fred
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,192
- Reaction score
- 0
That's the way I built my Beck. With a C weight barrel the whole front end just looked huge. So I kept at it and ended up with only about 1/16" of vertical on the side of the barrel.
For you guys that have handled lots of originals- Lets say for you average Lancaster- what was the average thickness of the web between the barrel and rr groove at the muzzle? 1/8 inch?
Also, Mike, when you say a real shallow rr groove, how shallow are you talking?
Thanks.
For you guys that have handled lots of originals- Lets say for you average Lancaster- what was the average thickness of the web between the barrel and rr groove at the muzzle? 1/8 inch?
Also, Mike, when you say a real shallow rr groove, how shallow are you talking?
Thanks.
Onojutta
45 Cal.
I started a thread on here sometime last year in which the subject of carving on originals was debated.
Some feel that most guns made in the 18th century were strictly utilitarian and that ornate decorations were reserved for the gentry. The theory continues that few uncarved utilitarian "poor-boys" survived because they were used up, and the original still around today were those expensive fancy rifles that didn't see much action.
The other side of the argument is that most guns were carved as a reflection of the culture back then and that it didn't really take much more time or money to add some scrolls at the cheek piece.
One thing that does seem to hold true regardless of how many originals were carved is the fact that much more emphasis is put on decoration and carving in modern times than the originals. I have heard a few modern masters admit this and I have seen it on the few originals I have been fortunate enough to examine. The same also seems to old true for overall workmanship.
The beauty of most things that are made by hand is the fact the every single piece ends up unique in contrast from mass production. Imperfections from one to the next does not indicate poor quality, but rather is a reflection of the human part of the manufacturing process.
As a builder whose experience and abilities are far from those required to achieve perfection, that is one element of the process that I embrace. :wink:
I think one thing we modernists tend to lose track of is the fact that the originals had to be working reliable rifles first and works of art second. These days it definitely seems to be the other way around. I suspect that few of us rely on our rifles for survival on the frontier.
Some feel that most guns made in the 18th century were strictly utilitarian and that ornate decorations were reserved for the gentry. The theory continues that few uncarved utilitarian "poor-boys" survived because they were used up, and the original still around today were those expensive fancy rifles that didn't see much action.
The other side of the argument is that most guns were carved as a reflection of the culture back then and that it didn't really take much more time or money to add some scrolls at the cheek piece.
One thing that does seem to hold true regardless of how many originals were carved is the fact that much more emphasis is put on decoration and carving in modern times than the originals. I have heard a few modern masters admit this and I have seen it on the few originals I have been fortunate enough to examine. The same also seems to old true for overall workmanship.
The beauty of most things that are made by hand is the fact the every single piece ends up unique in contrast from mass production. Imperfections from one to the next does not indicate poor quality, but rather is a reflection of the human part of the manufacturing process.
As a builder whose experience and abilities are far from those required to achieve perfection, that is one element of the process that I embrace. :wink:
I think one thing we modernists tend to lose track of is the fact that the originals had to be working reliable rifles first and works of art second. These days it definitely seems to be the other way around. I suspect that few of us rely on our rifles for survival on the frontier.
newbie here and have lurked for what seems like years and this is my first post due to this topic, I too have really questioned all the ornate things I see on some of these guns. well made beautifully crafted, and a sure treasure and treat to those who build. Now I am no historian but I really wave wondered about the true long-gun that was used by the common man. I liken this to the old double guns I have . My LC Smith field grade gun is truly and American heritage gun, used by the common man , Now my Ideal grade LC smith is a gun to behold and is seldom in the field , same gun different grade of workmanship.
I will be getting into my first gun sometime in the new year and I want a more interested in a quality crafted gun that can be used in the field without the worry of a scratch or a bump or a ding, After all these type of beauty marks and custom engravings are what give a gun it field character.
I am not questioning anyone's thoughts but when I think of a traditional long-gun engravings do not come to mind. Now they are awesome looking and I am sure even back then the thought that if you got it flaunt it still holds true.
You guys are awesome and I will get up the courage to join in soon.
Lumpy
I will be getting into my first gun sometime in the new year and I want a more interested in a quality crafted gun that can be used in the field without the worry of a scratch or a bump or a ding, After all these type of beauty marks and custom engravings are what give a gun it field character.
I am not questioning anyone's thoughts but when I think of a traditional long-gun engravings do not come to mind. Now they are awesome looking and I am sure even back then the thought that if you got it flaunt it still holds true.
You guys are awesome and I will get up the courage to join in soon.
Lumpy
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
I don't know, I don't measure stuff very much. Probably more than 2/3'ds exposed or more. :idunno:
longcruise
70 Cal.
How does that play out near the lock? If you wish to center the flashole at the point even with the top edge of the lock bolster then your top of the stock line along the barrel would seem to have to gradually run downward toward the muzzle. I'm having trouble picturing this. Do you have any pics to illustrate?
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,963
- Reaction score
- 869
No pictures ready yet.
Lehigh guns typically have the fore end well BELOW centerline of the barrel, and the locks are positioned well ABOVE centerline of the barrel! All to get them as vertically narrow as possible.
The top edge of the lock will sit higher and out of line with the top edge of the fore end. The top edge of the fore end is straight from lock to muzzle. And yes, the touch hole needs to be higher on the side flat, and no, that's not a problem if you're not using a touch hole liner. :wink:
Lehigh guns are BIZARRE and NOT for the neophyte or the faint of heart.
:shocked2:
Lehigh guns typically have the fore end well BELOW centerline of the barrel, and the locks are positioned well ABOVE centerline of the barrel! All to get them as vertically narrow as possible.
The top edge of the lock will sit higher and out of line with the top edge of the fore end. The top edge of the fore end is straight from lock to muzzle. And yes, the touch hole needs to be higher on the side flat, and no, that's not a problem if you're not using a touch hole liner. :wink:
Lehigh guns are BIZARRE and NOT for the neophyte or the faint of heart.
:shocked2:
I have all the components for a Rupp Lehigh but so far am still "fiddling" w/ the design which might "postpone" ever building it. Good excuse? In the realm of LRs... Lehighs, Bedfords and some others might be interesting exaggerations wrought long ago and actually were short term "fads" and although their "lines" are attractive, none of their attributes are incorporated in the sound rifle designs of the present day. Just some thoughts, rightly or wrongly....Fred
