platypus gun? I show, you tell...

[lonehorseman]

Point made!

What you have is a very beautiful rifle! Particularly nice for the era in which it was built.

Like its' owner, the rifle has just the right amount of "flair" without being ostentatious. Proper aging has mellowed it perfectly!

I would just call it a Spence Rifle. As a follower and admirer of your posts, thoughts, and insights, I would expect nothing less!

 

[lonehorseman]

Spence, I recently owned a KY built rifle from around the same time period as yours. Mine was built in Eastern Ky, and like your rifle, the quality and workmanship from the 70's may have been better than most think. The next time you visit historic Greensburg, KY you can see it hanging in a display case at the Longhunter's Cafe.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I don't know enough about 'schools' to have an opinion.
But, it looks just right to me. Beautiful.
I would be proud to own it. Anyone would.

 

[George]

How does she shoot???

I've got a 1-48 on my .40 made by Bob Watts, love taking her out squirrel hunting...Just curious about the 1-66...My lightest load is 25grs FFF but she shoots just as well when I get up to 60-70grs, just hits a bit high...

Also, mine has a Douglas barrel, do you know what she has???

She has always been a very accurate gun. Squirrels don't like her, at all. The barrel is also a Dougas, and my range of load is just about the same as yours, 25-70 grains FFFg Goex. POI is the same for the 65-70 gr. load and the 30 gr. load without changing the sights.

Spence

 

[George]

Spence, I recently owned a KY built rifle from around the same time period as yours. Mine was built in Eastern Ky, and like your rifle, the quality and workmanship from the 70's may have been better than most think. The next time you visit historic Greensburg, KY you can see it hanging in a display case at the Longhunter's Cafe.

Greensburg is my favorite small Kentucky town, love the old courthouse.

I have a rifle built by another local builder in the same time period, this one from Johnson City, TN. It is also a very well built, beautiful little gun, with extraordinary inlays and engraving, Wm. Large barrel and is a tack driver. It would also be categorized as non-HC/PC, not acceptable because it's just someone's "interpretation", I suppose.

My reason for this thread was to see if the gun gang could make clear for me where this type of guns fits into the big picture. These guns which belong to no certain school or time period, which are not faithful copies of originals, but have no characteristic which disqualifies them from being considered real longrifles. In the nearly 2 years I've been on this forum I've seen a lot of guns pictured. The reaction to most is very positive, they are considered pretty, well made guns, and the owners/makers are freely complimented. But, if the historical aspect of the gun comes up, it is a rare thing for it to be declared HC/PC by the gun boys. What makes that true is and has always been a very fuzzy area for me. I've spent a lot of time looking at the original guns shown in the major reference books I have access to, and, let me tell you true, there were a lot of truly butt-ugly guns made. I laugh when I imagine the thrashing anyone who built such a gun today would get if they dared show them on this board. But, of course, they are all totally HC/PC. Yet, all it takes for a modern builder's interpretation to be declared non-HC/PC is for the forearm to have been left a bit fat, or some such. I was hoping to trigger a discussion of why that is true, but I guess it isn't going to happen.

Spence

 

[jdkerstetter]

Those men's work is still considered foundational in many respects, I believe.

I agree, we owe those men a debt of gratitude and this builder would have had advantages if he was associated with them or knew of their work.

Many of hobby builders back then didn't and even if they did have the books, it's a long way from books to a finished longrifle as fine as this.

Either way, this builder had skill and there's no arguing that.

Those who were building guns at that time weren't as handicapped as recent hobbyists imagine.

You said a mouthful there. Thanks again for posting her, J.D.

 

[Keb]

... I was hoping to trigger a discussion of why that is true, but I guess it isn't going to happen.

Spence

I believe when the modern builder unfavorably critiques a modern made gun it's because the modern gun is called a particular reproduction. For instance someone posts pictures of their latest gun and calls it an Early Virginia and it looks nothing like an original Early Virginia. The "experts" know it doesn't look anything like an original and says so. Then the fur flies.
But if someone post a gun and calls it a platypus... well you know.

BTW, I don't care for the platypus gun, not because it can't be classified any particular school, but just because it doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Spence, I recently owned a KY built rifle from around the same time period as yours. Mine was built in Eastern Ky, and like your rifle, the quality and workmanship from the 70's may have been better than most think. The next time you visit historic Greensburg, KY you can see it hanging in a display case at the Longhunter's Cafe.

Greensburg is my favorite small Kentucky town, love the old courthouse.

I have a rifle built by another local builder in the same time period, this one from Johnson City, TN. It is also a very well built, beautiful little gun, with extraordinary inlays and engraving, Wm. Large barrel and is a tack driver. It would also be categorized as non-HC/PC, not acceptable because it's just someone's "interpretation", I suppose.

My reason for this thread was to see if the gun gang could make clear for me where this type of guns fits into the big picture. These guns which belong to no certain school or time period, which are not faithful copies of originals, but have no characteristic which disqualifies them from being considered real longrifles. In the nearly 2 years I've been on this forum I've seen a lot of guns pictured. The reaction to most is very positive, they are considered pretty, well made guns, and the owners/makers are freely complimented. But, if the historical aspect of the gun comes up, it is a rare thing for it to be declared HC/PC by the gun boys. What makes that true is and has always been a very fuzzy area for me. I've spent a lot of time looking at the original guns shown in the major reference books I have access to, and, let me tell you true, there were a lot of truly butt-ugly guns made. I laugh when I imagine the thrashing anyone who built such a gun today would get if they dared show them on this board. But, of course, they are all totally HC/PC. Yet, all it takes for a modern builder's interpretation to be declared non-HC/PC is for the forearm to have been left a bit fat, or some such. I was hoping to trigger a discussion of why that is true, but I guess it isn't going to happen.

Spence

Other than the straight barrel I'd call that a Period Correct gun.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

... I was hoping to trigger a discussion of why that is true, but I guess it isn't going to happen.

Spence

I believe when the modern builder unfavorably critiques a modern made gun it's because the modern gun is called a particular reproduction. For instance someone posts pictures of their latest gun and calls it an Early Virginia and it looks nothing like an original Early Virginia. The "experts" know it doesn't look anything like an original and says so. Then the fur flies.
But if someone post a gun and calls it a platypus... well you know.

:hatsoff:

 

[Robby]

Spence,
I agree there were a lot of butt ugly guns made back in the day, and today as well. "schools" is a generalization given by modern men and should be taken as such. When someone criticizes a gun as having a forearm as being too fat, I don't think it as much a HC comment as it would be more pleasing to 'their' eye, mostly. Now if the maker represents a gun as say a 'Lancaster', and indeed the profile, carving, etc. is fitting for that type of gun, but it sports a butt plate and trigger guard that cannot be documented to have ever used with that architecture, that is a different story.
Probably the finest bench copy of a gun ever done, at least to my observations, was submitted to Dixon's Gun Fair for critique. It came away with virtually NOTHING! Nothing against the judging, I think they are trying to do their very best to be true in their observations, but they have their task and are only human. I submitted a blowing horn for judging at the fair and did very well. When I received the horn back, it had the jury comments. The very things they felt were negatives, were the very things I was trying to convey or accomplish, so Their negative was my positive.
What I think I am trying to say is, if you are looking for the one definitive thing to hang your hat on when it come to understanding the business of critiquing, it just isn't going to happen.
Nice gun!
Robby

 

[jdkerstetter]

Some good points being made here and above.

Thanks for steering the conversation Spence!

In order to determine if something is PC you have to establish the "period". In order to establish the HC you have to establish a "history"

The gun presented in this post was merely submitted for critique with out trying to label it as anything other than what it is....a nice representation of a longrifle.

If it had been posted as here for critique as the "Lehigh" build or the "Beck" copy it likely would be shot full of holes and maybe some feelings hurt.

In the same grain Spence pointed out many guns posted here are showered with compliments. If somebody is just posting thier gun and not asking for critique I try not to critique it....(excuse me again Hanshi). For example..."Here's my first build....I'm really proud of it"....why tear the guy down with "it doesn't look any thing like....". Complement what's good and offer some pointers if they are welcome. Now ask for a critique and you are likely to get, well, a critique...and the truth hurts sometimes but that's how we learn. Lessons taught through humility last the longest...I taught Marines for 4 years and you don't want them making the same mistake twice.

Seems we have this heading in the right direction now. Let's keep going....and "enjoy"....(I know that's bothering some people, but I don't care....they'll figure it out someday :thumbsup: )

J.D.

 

[George]

I'm a little surprised that there is apparently so little about the rifle to indicate a style, region or school. So far, unless I've missed something, the only opinions along that line are that it is sort of federal period.

I thought the cut (?) which separates the nose of the comb from the rest of the butt would be familiar to someone. Original invention of the builder?

The patchbox rings no bells? It's release? The style of barrel escutcheons?

The "Germanic" lock fits in with whatever the rest represents?

Well, whatever, it has served me well. For 39 years and counting it has functioned without fail, been more accurate than I can shoot, and given me pleasure. I've never had to repair it in any way except to tighten one escutcheon. Back in the early days I let myself be convinced it needed a touchhole liner and put one in, wouldn't do that now, but that's all the work which has ever been done on the gun.

Thanks to all who commented, I enjoyed the conversation.

And thanks to J. D. Thompson, RIP.

Spence

 

[lonehorseman]

I was hoping to trigger a discussion of why that is true, but I guess it isn't going to happen.

Spence

Some folks are just better at starting arguments than others! You could e-mail this post to a couple of other forum members, have them re-post it, and everyone will bring out the flamethrowers!

 

[jdkerstetter]

Many of the features are familiar. I haven't had a chance yet to go the books yet....work, kids, soccer, baseball, Cub Scout meeting.

But, as stated before, many later flint guns didn't fall into the "schools". The schools mainly track the early developement of the longrifle and by the period I feel this gun represents most builders were following their own ideas and combining attributes from previous designs.

Take the Leman's from Lancaster. They are much diffent than the guns produced in early Lancaster and are either lumped in with trade guns or early plains guns. The aren't generally referred to as falling into a "school" but as simply Lemans or Indian trade guns....their own animal...not a platypus though.

Another example is the guns simply lumped in the "Golden Age" catagory....some schools can be identified during this era but there were more one-offs too. To make it even more convoluted, the embelished golden age guns were the guns most often copied during the 60-70's....them and Hawken type guns. They were what was in favor at that time.

Sometimes all we can hope for is to make period or regional distinctions based on style, materials used, embelishments, caliber, etc....thus Federal Period/Western Pennsylvania....where we would find mixed attributes from the various early schools as the gunmakers moved west.

I'll look through the books when I get a chance....others feel free to do the same, please.

I also would like to hear more dialog on this.

Great thread.

J.D.

 

[jdkerstetter]

ff ....and perhaps a subject for another thread....maybe under gun building?

Why would you not install a touch hole liner today?

J.D.

 

[Elnathan]

Bob (do you mind if I call you Bob?),
moldings around the nose of the comb are pretty much standard issue on kentucky rifles. the only exceptions are ones that simply aren't decorated, and rifles made in North Carolina, which often have moldings along the top line of the comb instead.

I think what makes a "platypus" gun happens when it has some features that were closely associated with a particular region or maker and some that are never found with that same region or maker. If this gun had a daisy-head patchbox, an arch-typical Lancaster pattern, then the fact that the stock profile is not a typically Lancaster pattern would be a problem (possibly not a good example, since I think that Lancaster furniture was copied outside of Lancaster, but hopefully you get my point.) In addition, if there are features that are mismatched as to time period, as if you had a 1750s German-style swaged buttplate attached to what is otherwise a fine-quality American rifle from the Federal period or if you had a 1840 triggerguard with another curl for your middle finger, then you would also have a platypus gun. Without anachronistic features or details that point to more than one particular school, then what you have is a "generic" or unattributable rifle which is nevertheless historically correct.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with making a rifle that fits into a hsitorical period but has no features which point to a particular school, or building a simulated "parts gun " from mismatched parts. There are some very nice and/or interesting pieces, both historical and reproduction, which fall into these areas. The problem is that in order to build a generic rifle correctly, one must know the originals well enough to avoid using a feature strongly associated with a particular school. I building a parts gun is possibly even more complicated, for one must not only avoid anachronisms, but also have a sense of how original smiths reused parts - I could accept a recycled Brown Bess buttplate used without alteration on a plain, no-nonsense fowler or fowler-ish smoothrifle; on a plain, revolutionary-era longrifle with minimal decoration if it was cut down to look more like a typical rifle buttplate (as on one original); but not on a high-quality federal period rifle, when rifles generally had more crescent-shaped buttplate and schools were more well defined.

 

[Elnathan]

By the way, and perhaps straying from the topic a bit, I am not convinced rifle-building schools just grew like Topsy. There are a couple instances of gunsmiths switching schools after moving to a new region, which suggests that the basic schools were recognized in their own time. There is also the example of John Newcomber, a Lancaster who built some nice, fairly typical rifles typical of school, yet at least twice did something so radically different that the first piece was identified as an Early Southern piece until a near-identical signed piece was found. Newcomber was clearly an imaginative and talented smith who could think outside the school, yet also worked within the accepted style, which suggests that that he and others could recognize a tradition when they saw it. Since we can, I don't think it is surpising that they could - they were hardly stupid men.

Some of this was probably market forces -"the customer is always right"- but it occurs to me that most longrifles were built prior to the Romantic Era, when emotion, intuition, and nature were elevated above reason, tradition, and the works of man, and Shelley went around spouting drivel like "Poets are the unacknowledged legislatures of the world." There were no guilds in the US, of course, and smiths were more free than their counterparts in Europe to follow their own muse as far as the customer would allow them, but I suspect that the mentality of the guild, of working within a set of rules, still remained somewhat. Those smiths today who consciously exercise their creativity within the confines of an established tradition may be closer to the mindset of original gunsmiths than we sometimes think.

 

[Robby]

Good point Elnathan, Peter White is another good example of someone who built guns that reflected more the area that he was living at the time, than his own personal style.

 

[Rifleman1776]

It,s a very well made gun, incredible actually when you consider it was built in 1973!. I can't identify a school, but there are many originals that can't be identified either. The only thing that could improve it would be a swamped barrel, but they were incredibly rare in '73.

Mike, I have to reply critically to your comments. I cannot understand why you would think there were no top level gun builders in the 1970’s. I moved near Friendship in 1970. We first attended a big shoot there a year earlier. At that time I had never even heard of the muzzle loading shooting sport. But my first visit strongly impressed me with the way the participants were preserving and remembering history through this avocation. Even more so, seeing the works of many highly skilled craftsmen with the rifles they had built put me in absolute awe of what they had done. And, I certainly welled up with pride of being an American seeing these Americans preserving and recreating American history.
I came to know many top level gun builders. John Braxton built (and maybe still does) Jaegers for museums to fill in collections where originals could not be obtained. Hawkens (not the TC versions) were the craze of the time. One was simply not ”˜primitive’ if one did not have a Hawken. Many were excellently built and very exacting replicas of what came out of the shop in St. Louis originally. One was later reviewed in The American Rifleman by John Baird as a “previously undiscovered original”. It was a recent build by a man who later became one of my closest friends. That is craftsmanship at it’s finest. My Rev. period style transitional long rifle was built by Ray Miller and is a virtual twin to a Rev. period original.
Not meaning to take shots at ye my friend, but I’m bumfuzzled by yer comment. Highly skilled rifle builders have been with us for a long time. I doubt we have been without them ever in America. Certainly there was a resurgence from the time of the first inception shoot put on by Red Farris in 1930. Some of the great builders from the 1970s are still with us. My friend, the Hawken builder is one. Ray Miller is another. And there are many-many more.
Sadly, if I may digress, a Hawken I had built at that time was a really butchered job. Not good at all. Can’t say who but the butcher job was, well”¦really brutal butchery for what I hoped would be a fine rifle.
Anyhow, the good builders were not born in 1970. Their daddy’s and granddaddy’s were doing just fine before the current crop were even born.
Excuse the sermon. Ye hit a hot button.

 

[Bruce Bogart]

Another thing to consider is that some originals were not school correct. Some gunsmiths in Ohio back in the day turned out some wonderful rifles that had some properties of thier eastern cousins. Most were transplanted Penn gunsmiths and brought what they learned with them. Some of the archtecture remained, but the furniture evolved, and alot of hardware locks showed up. Not platypus guns, just another style. BUT they had a style and not just using whatever parts helter skelter. And they weren't trying to emulate a particular style. The archetecture and the furniture had to work together. No skinny butts with fat triggergaurds etc. It either all works together or it doesn't. And if you are going to do a school specific build do the homework and strive to adhere to the basic tenets of the school. AND do not ask for an opinion if you do not want one!!!!