No particular "school" builds

[dave_person]

Thanks,
Those are very kind words and I appreciate the appreciation.

dave

 

[rich pierce]

Very early rifles, before 1770, often defy assignment to schools because schools had not yet developed. All that's needed is that every part and architectural abc decorative style be "early enough".

Wood choice is more wide open.
Swamped barrels of .45 or greater in any length
Sliding wooden or simple 2 piece brass box
Nice early lock, about a dozen choices, maybe more
Nice wide flat buttplate and early guard
Can have almost no carving or simple carving or sophisticated European quality carving.

 

[tenngun]

Well my TFC is from centermark, it's a good gun and close to a TFC but far from a perfect copy. My NWG is on maple nor did I buy the stamps so my stock shape is right, my barrel is too thick at the muzzle, but...it's close. My southern rifle is close in stock shape but it has a German style lock. It's not perfect. Should I do one again I can fix the problems, but I doubt even the most strict juries event would refuse me entrance based on my guns.
While the info that is avalible now is so very easy to get and matched parts are also easy to get it is as cost effective to make a more correct piece then a random.
We should not get too far down in the weeds though. There were silver and brass mounted southern rifles, full stock Ohio rifles ect. No one back then built 'school'.

 

[Many Klatch]

I took a couple of gun building classes from John Schippers who has written the new book on engraving. He talked about "barn" or "hawg" guns quite a bit. Those were guns that in his opinion were built to kill hogs and sometimes hunt with. Most were made with primitive tools and hardware store parts. Most didn't have butt plates some didn't even have trigger guards. Very few survived because they got used up and recycled. They were crudely made but they worked. It doesn't take a great deal of art to get a ball to come out of a barrel. It does take a great deal of art to make a good looking gun that works well and is accurate.

 

[chawbeef]

But what about..., historically inspired...,??? As long as the builder/user doesn't try to pass it off as anything other than a "long rifle"



LD

Thank you Loyalist Dave. Historically inspired" is the best description I have heard. :hatsoff: That is what "my" rifle is :thumbsup: .........Daniel

 

[54ball]

I too want to thank you.
To the forum....
I can't tell you how much of a privilege it is to get invited to a gunsmiths shop much less an offer to help with a project. Really it amounts being invited to a top notch University for free.
Many including the gunsmith himself invested untold effort and money to gain that skill. To be offered free help....well....It's a privilege.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Here's one I commissioned Jon Donelson to make. I like the early Lehigh School with a nod to Rupp, and this is vaguely there, but the stock is flame cherry and the furniture (except patchbox and end cap) is iron he forged from old silo bands. 44" swamped L.C. Rice round bottom rifling barrel.

Two 50 yard groups.

 

[chawbeef]

:thumbsup: I like it cuz it's something different...........Daniel

 

[tenngun]

I thing to remember is the idea of decoration and usefulness at the time. A look at seventeenth century ships were full of 'ginger bread'.The stern was full of carvings, on state ships it was often covered with gold leaf. The bow was often heavily adorned. Even running down the rail there was a deceptive strip. In board internal post(stanchons) rails around open hatches or the panels that formed internal rooms(cabins) were vary decorated. By the AWI ships decoration had been greatly reduced but was still much in evidence. By 1800 decoration was severely decreased. And was absent by WBTS. Work-a-day guns would become very plane. The Spencer's winchesters and sharps were pretty much as plain Jane as could be.
On Military guns eighteenth century arms were fairly fancy. By 1800 guns became plainer and plainer. The more fancy colonial styles of homes and townhouses gave way to the much plainer frederal style.
A rifle made in 1750, even a 'plain' gun would likely have more decoration then 1800. And that decoration would be local style and related, and time sensitive.

 

[crockett]

I agree that not many rifles were built "at home" by pioneers, I think what is at issue is the "famous" builders- most from Pennsylvania versus a lot of regional builders. If you get to Ilion, NY the Remington Museum has one of the first (or first) rifles Remington made. Locals liked and bought some but they definitely look a little different from those in PA. The other thing is in many area, such as New England there were many fowlers as compared to rifles. These "other" arms shouldn't be considered one time home made items- to the best of my understanding.

 

[hanshi]

LD, I think your "historically inspired" is a much better description. The vast majority of muzzleloaders built today more or less fall into that category. Too many like to draw a line in the sand, H/C or non H/C. But all that accomplishes is, well, a line in the sand. It also seems to justify criticisms of those who can't afford custom or who like generic guns. Most all "built" guns are the builder's interpretation of a historical piece and are often described as such. It's sophomoric to denigrate anyone's choice of muzzleloader.

 

[BrownBear]

Most informed statement I've ever read about muzzleloader styling.

 

[rich pierce]

Actually 1800 encompasses the Golddn Age of flintlocks, many of which were highly decorated with carving and inlays. Yes the Southern Mountain Rifle began to emerge and some plain rifles for the west may have been made, but Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina rifles were usually decorated.

 

[Artificer]

Actually 1800 encompasses the Golddn Age of flintlocks, many of which were highly decorated with carving and inlays. Yes the Southern Mountain Rifle began to emerge and some plain rifles for the west may have been made, but Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina rifles were usually decorated.

Rich,

That raises a great point for another reason I'm sure you know, but some others may not realize.

After the AWI, there were actually TOO many gunsmiths for the demand for new civilian guns in the poor economy following the War. So if one was going to stay in business, one had to carve/decorate his gun/s more than others and do it cheaper than probably had been done before that time.

The point, though, is there were more gunsmiths than were really necessary to fill the needs/desires of many civilians in many places. So that surplus of gunsmiths would have been repairing guns and assembling guns that some may believe were done by settlers or those who were not trained in gunsmithing.

Gus

 

[rich pierce]

Good info, Gus.

I actually like plain rifles and seek out early ones to emulate. I've got a list of "to build" early plain-ish rifles, smooth rifles, and fowling pieces, each based on a specific original.

Off the top of my head, without my books in front of me:

A 1770s pre-Lehigh rifle Shumway illustrated in Muzzle blasts. Very stout. Curved butt stock but no double curve. Zero carving. The side plate is identical to one on a Christian's Spring rifle.

Might be #120 in Rifles of Colonial America. Very plain and early with s 32" swamped barrel. I will leave out the carriage bolt repair lol. "No school"

A smooth rifle Shumway illustrated in Muzzle Blasts with s simple 2 piece brass patchbox. Clean lines. "No school"

An early Lancaster rifle without carving, patchbox, or even a side plate. Again, Shumway and Muzzle Blasts.

The Old Holston "black rifle " Wallace Gusler wrote up in MB. Walnut stocked and iron furniture, about 1770.

Rifles of Colonial America #124, a walnut stocked Southern rifle with a sliding wooden patchbox and next to no carving. Yes I sometimes memorize their numbers lol. "No school" meaning there are not a bunch of other originals we can relate this one to.

The "feather rifle" Wallace Gusler attributes to Virginia and 1760s. Minimal carving, really.

so it really is possible to build a plain rifle based on an original. Even an early one. There's value in that for me, but not everybody, and that is fine too.

 

[tenngun]

I was too brief. Yes many super fancy guns would come at this time, but it was also the dawn of so many plain guns. My point was the tendency to make highly decorated irons that moved to plainer styles. Not just in guns. The French Revolution murdered so many wealthy people and just buckles on your shoes could result in a kangaroo court and execution. The result would be an interest in plain. Something that was seen across the board.

 

[Elnathan]

1) There are quite a number of very nicely made old guns that have no characteristics that allow us to place them in a "school" or location. Recreating these is a different proposition from building a "platypus" gun that combines distinctive characteristics from multiple regions. I think that pulling off a "generic" gun successfully would actually be more difficult than building one that conforms closely to a school - you have to be pretty familiar with different schools to avoid including something school specific AND, since you don't have a model to follow, you must have a good understanding of how everything needs to fit together to avoid looking like crap.

2) Just because they were made on the frontier doesn't mean that they were plain or roughly made: http://www.americanhistoricservices.com/uploads/1/0/3/4/10348480/across_the_woods_kra.pdf

3) There are number of originals that are kind of ugly or have poor architecture, BUT the mistakes they show are by-and-large not the mistakes people make today. The difference between people used to working from rough lumber and copying what they had seen in the round versus those used to working from dimensional lumber and copying what they have seen in pictures with a dose of influence from modern firearms, I suspect.

4)As for the notion that we aren't allowed to criticize a gun because reasons, I retort thus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rHQsK4IKDU

People are free to shoot what they want, but I decline to believe that a generic "semi-custom" with compromises to meet a price point is every bit as good as a fine custom built to original specs. It isn't like I can afford either, anyway.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Elnathan,
I agree with you. I am happy to see builders mix and match and make what they want. I do that often depending on my objectives. However, I never represent it as anything other than a "Dave Person" contemporary gun. However, if I build a gun that I claim is "inspired" by a certain school, maker, or style, I make sure I do my homework and know what the style is that I am supposed to be inspired by. For me "inspired by" is not an ambiguous phrase giving me wide license. If I make a "J. P. Beck inspired" gun, someone looking at it could conclude that it was made by a maker who apprenticed or worked for Beck.

dave

 

[Loyalist Dave]

EXACTLY! Good on ya Dave!

For me, the fellow who goes to the trouble, and expense, to get a hand forged, and hand rifled barrel, handmade lock, hardware, and hand carved stock..., into a copy of a classic rifle, gets a :bow: from me. That person went to the Nth degree, WHICH helps preserve the "full package" of skills of the rifle builder.

Yet there are a bunch of us who won't reach that pinnacle, but we can go to enough of a degree in our portrayal of the material culture that we help foster rifle builders, tinsmiths, blacksmiths, coppersmiths, coopers, weavers, cordwainers and cobblers, tailors, horners, cutlers, brewers, chandlers, and etc. and keep the hobby and history itself, Alive.

LD

 

[rich pierce]

I do see serious target shooters making or shooting generic rifles quite a bit. For them, comfortable architecture, the fastest lock, and a barrel that is accurate and hangs well for them offhand are the important criteria. Understood. Others on the lkne are more interested in living history and do pretty well with guns based on originals.

It might be splitting hairs but it is quite possible to build a rifle that is based on an original, but does not belong to a "school". Just base it on an original that is outside what collectors have organized into "schools".