Hobby building...LRs

[Vaino]

Started building in 1977 and although it was something I'd never done before, building MLers was prompted by the poor quality of the MLers being offered at that time by suppliers.

Once I decided to build, I read and studied every "how to" book and LR references on the market....w/ the emphasis on "study". Seeing I had gone through a 5 yr tool and diemaker apprenticeship, the discipline was already there...so, started w/ a blank build and promptly "screwed it up" and salvaged the metal parts and started over.

I didn't think of this "learning curve" as fun...to me it was a challenge, mainly because of the artistic and aesthetics that would hopefully be in my builds.

My success or whatever has been satisfying in the successive years since first starting the initial build....but, I never considered building LRs as "fun". An appreciation of having skills that produced MLers that were generally accepted on the open market as characteristic of the "school" or style as advertised, was very rewarding from both the "self esteem" and financial standpoints.

Fun, fun, fun wasn't my "goal" even w/ my first build, because I didn't want to make "FUNNY LOOKING" MLers....respecting the historical "arts and crafts" of the original makers was the important thing. Why else would one build MLers if the "product" doesn't come close in emulating the "original builders"?

Many buy a parts set {kit} and do a "good enough" job, but incorporating features that didn't exist w/ the style of their "kit" is to me, not doing justice because of the lack of research or a nonchalant attitude.

Many posts espouse....."it's your gun so do w/ it what you will" and if the final product is unrecognizable as being from any historical style or reference, that's OK. To me, such a MLer is nonexistent and therefore a "modern day" creation.....why would one "waste" their time creating such?....Fred

 

[crockett]

Well, I suppose we shouldn't come down too hard on the creative artist types. I think Hersel House builds his own creations but you have to cut him some lack as muzzle loaders never really went out in his area, got pretty slim but there is a continuity, there were always a few guys using them. A WWII relative spoke of some guys from that area and their rifles.
BUT...if you are into the pre-1840, have to sort of agree. One of my pet peeves, a lot of replica gear is not right, trade knives especially, and it seems they could make exact copies, I never can figure out why the differences.
If you are "just fooling around" with a bunch of parts that aren't pc to begin with and you want a learning experience, then I can see just throwing something together.

 

[Dane]

Fred,
You and I think a lot alike.

This first gun I built fell into that category. A flintlock, full stock Vincent. That thing is still around. Occasionally, I see it at a shoot. It still shoots great and still looks likes s&#£.
Since then, I've tried to stay as authentic as possible.
Ok, granted, I do use modern day lighting, electricity, and tools, but try to keep the final product as close as possible with the school I'm trying to recreate.
When I see what some of the mass manufacturers are building, it makes me crazy.
Everything gets a Siler lock..way before it's time, or way after. English or French.
Iron hardware, instead of brass, etc., etc.
And everyone wants a $500 gun. Well, with parts being around a thousand, that's kinda tough.
Available parts can be areal issue as well. Lock plates, side plates, triggers, trigger plates that aren't proper, and aren't available commercially. You just gotta make your own.
And for some reason, I just gotta keep building.
Welcome to my addiction!!!

 

[galamb]

I study the crap out of what I build.

While I do not possess the talent to truly recreate a specific rifle from a specific builder, I do try. Or at the very least try to come up with something that "could have been" their work - keeping true to their style/architecture etc.

Others have no such inspiration.

And while I don't judge that or think their is anything wrong with it either (some just want something that will go boom), what does bother me is when they have to hang some "nametag" on the rifle and then try and convince others that the gun is historically correct to an area/builder etc.

If you want an Early Lancaster, build a Dickert (or one of the other builders).

If you simply want a longrifle that represents a collage of perhaps ten or twelve original builders styles over a 20 or 30 year period - what is wrong with simply calling it a "longrifle"?

 

[frogwalking]

Graham, as a less than famous man once said: "I resemble that remark". (Who can tell me who said that?)

I am currently building what I call a generic Lancaster. We will ignore the fact that it is 32 caliber for the moment. I realize the comparison between my creation and Johnny Cash's famous Cadillac, but I don't care.

My first home assembled rifle was in 1966. I didn't make it because of the poor quality of reproductions, but I could not afford one of them. Numrich barrels, Dixie Tennessee precarved halfstocks and Dixie locks were pretty cheap. Still, I could just barely scrape the funds together for the parts. In those days, we did what many today do, we bought the parts we liked and spliced them together. Today. I do much better at keeping the parts close, but that does not mean I won't mix a Fordney trigger guard with a Gonter buttplate and top it off with a Sees patchbox. The trick (I think) is to know that is what you are doing.

There are some combinations that just don't work. Like the guy who made a 54 caliber Tennessee mountain rifle, then complained about the "fad" of the deep crescent buttplate. He learned the hard way that a .38 caliber Tennessee is considered a large caliber.

I guess the most important thing is to enjoy building, and to never stop learning.

 

[kurts]

all those schools would never have come about if nobody did anything different.

 

[Vaino]

That was then...not the same as now.

If a contemporary MLer can't be recognized as belonging to an "original" school or style, then it's a modern creation w/o historical reference.

Most factory made MLers as well as some custom made MLers fit the modern creation description and it's too late for "new schools".

People can build whatever they want, but why not build a MLer that has an historical basis? All it takes is some research.

Personally, I really don't care what others build, but if they build MLers w/o historical references, I tend to ignore them.....Fred

 

[thecapgunkid]

You're caught in a craftsmans trap. If you don't enjoy what you are doing, then stop doing it until you can get a tutor.

The reason I became a shoemaker was because I liked working with leather and, when the golden opportunity to apprentice with one at Bethpage Village came up, I grabbed it.

That one summer stint is what separates me from the cobblers and self taught guys who go through the motions.

I had the value of expertise, I had the value of an organized learning curve, I had the value of a critical eye and I had the value of learning to master patience and ask more questions.

Without any two of those, you are never going to enjoy what you are doing and will invariably fight with the project.

The theory will never replace the hands on and falling into the trap of self esteem evaluation is an endless pit.

Are you practicing on scrap before you try skills like tap-and-die, filing, carving, staining etc.?

Go easy on yourself, awreddy

 

[JackP]

+1 Fred

Never did understand where the attraction for modern in line ML's came from.

I didn't hunt for many years, when I left the scene it was primitive weapons. When I returned it was in-lines with scopes.

Guess I'm getting old.

Jack

 

[Vaino]

Please re-read my posts...what I said was that building MLers wasn't "fun" , but that I did enjoy it. You know...there is a difference.

Also...you evidently again missed an item in one of my posts.....I know all about apprenticeships, having served a 5 yr state indentured tool and diemaker apprenticeship and then a "learnership" of 3yrs in die, mold and special machinery design.

Discussing topics is "fun", except that I expect responders to read my posts before replying to me.

We all have our opinions and "biases" and I've definitely revealed mine pertaining to building LRs....Fred

 

[frogwalking]

I know what you mean. My neighbor across the field came over one day because he heard that I like muzzleloaders. He asked me how many pellets or some such I used. I said "huh?" You know, powder, he says. No, I didn't know. He, like many of the "new muzzleloaders" are doing nothing but beating the system and getting a jump on modern rifle shooters. I showed him a flint fowler and he just shook his head. The in-line shooters are just beating the system.

If you enjoy shooting in-lines, go ahead. If you like building exact duplicates of rifles made 200 years ago, go ahead. I enjoy seeing what the makers of 200 years ago built, and then building something similar that suits me. This hobby has room for everyone.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The people who only like inlines do not really like muzzleloading. That is why there are so many "easy to clean" substitutes and shotgun primers. They are on the bleeding edge of not being a muzzleloader anymore.

As for building them, I find it fun. My work does not hold a candle to some of you builders on here and I do not seek quite the perfection you do when it comes to getting everything to match one school. I do, however, enjoy learning. I do a lot of learning. This work is fun for me, I like using all the tools and sculpting the wood and metal. As soon as it feels like work, I just stop. It gets done when it gets done. :grin:

 

[Semisane]

To me, such a MLer is nonexistent

I would suggest that once it's built it is indeed existent. :wink: :grin:

 

[Zonie]

Gentlemen.

We do not discuss the modern forms of muzzleloaders . This includes discussions about why shooters use them.

Thanks.

 

[thecapgunkid]

Fred,

I read your post. In fact, I read it twice because you hit upon a nerve all of us feel.

I needn't tell you that e-mails and texts in general are probably the worst media for getting inflection and other meaning. That's why we have those silly little icons. So, even dead-on posts that look so great whilst pounding the keybpoard (where the p is next to the o, for example) will lead different people to different thoughts.

Even those of us who have been practicing for a long time know the value of ruts, frustration and challenge. You kinda sorta sound like you are in that place.

If you took me the wrong way, sorry, but this ends the apology phase of this post. The most valuable contribution I can make to you is that you sound like you need more qualified people in your gun building life...not just texts...because you probably bring to the table as much as you walk away with. That's where the related apprenticeship you cited extends its value and shelf life.

I would hope that your discarded mistakes were not as voluminous as mine in homing in on age specific or "HC" work.

If you are not as good as you want to be at it now, You're gonna get there.

Now, go find that literal by re-reading your post

 

[vulture]

I can see right now that I will probably never post pictures of my builds. The simple fact is, I want a rifle that is composed of "good" parts that work the way they were intended, especially if putting together a flintlock, but, and this is important, I do not have the time nor the skill to stick to a particular school, in fact, other than stock shape I can't really tell the difference between say an early or late rifle, and the only half stock rifles I like the looks of are those that follow the general design of the Hawken brothers plains rifles, and those by Leman. I am not a purist, but a simple hobbyist who got into building because, like you, I couldn't purchase a production rifle that had the design or quality of parts that I wanted, and I wanted to have something that I actually put together myself. I will continue to build what I like, never represent them as something they are not, like calling them a Hawken, even though they may have many of the features of those rifles. I have a great respect for those of you who have the time and ability, but mostly the inclination to study the historical makers and build what they built, it's just not something I will ever do, I'm sorry. Stew.

 

[ol vern]

nothing to be sorry about. building is as much art as it is craft.

do the best job you can do and enjoy your rifle. next one will be
better.

 

[Rifleman1776]

You are what this game is all about. You are still very much preserving the heritage and principals of the ml era.
This is a do yer own thang game.
So....do yer own thang and enjoy. :hatsoff:

 

[Paul R]

Yes Vulture, I hear what you are saying. When I first started building ML rifles, I wanted hooked breech barrels, full stock, & I used TC hawken parts because I didn't want to practice with expensive parts that were harder to come by. My first 2 builds were 'interesting', but they worked well. My last build has a Rice swamped barrel w/hooked breech, Chambers Late Ketland lock, Davis dbl. set trigger, modified TC hawk.trigger guard, all on a curly maple full stock I cut from a plank, stained with ferrous nitrate, & finished w/tung oil.
The stock design is not PC/HC, so when I made the mistake of posting pictures here, they were quickly taken down & I endured a mild 'slapdown' which I accepted with good grace. I know that I could have not accomplished what did without lurking here for a couple years & asking questions when I needed.
I do admire and appreciate the work of builders here. I built custom furniture for years, and when a client paid for a historical reproduction, that is what they got. Other times, I blended styles & that made many clients happy,as well.
This site has a defined set of guidelines and that is necessary to hold to it's values. If it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't have been able to build my flintlock that works so well in the old ways, even if it doesn't look like it should.
Thanks to all who helped me out.
Paul

 

[longcruise]

I didn't think of this "learning curve" as fun...to me it was a challenge, mainly because of the artistic and aesthetics that would hopefully be in my builds.

I see your point and agree completely!

Riding a Tilt a Whirl is "fun"

Climbing a "fourteener" is hard work, challenging and rewarding. It does not involve much "fun".

Playing in the yard with the grand kids is "fun".

Building an ML is tedious, difficult, maddening and.... highly rewarding. It's not "fun".

Moose,

The stock design is not PC/HC, so when I made the mistake of posting pictures here, they were quickly taken down & I endured a mild 'slapdown' which I accepted with good grace.

I woould have to say that that was not one of the forum's finest days. Constructive criticism with useful advice should be the norm.