scratch built

[aragorn]

I agree. Also I don't see much difference between building a 'kit' gun for a particular style, school or maker, say a York or a Lancaster from Chambers, and ordering your own semi-finished stock and selection of parts to make such a gun. Broadly speaking you're going to start work with much the same spread of parts in front of you. When I look at a finished gun, I look at how it's put together, the finish, the architecture and the decoration, before I bother thinking whether the ramrod pipe is style x or y. I could look at 100 'identical' kit guns, say a Chambers York, and to me they might all look as different as if they'd been assembled from different parts, unless they were all made by the same maker. A related point must be that original gunmakers might have had a preference for a particular style of parts, or favoured particular suppliers, and over the years may have churned out many similar guns that might look like similar 'kits.'

Even if you're building from a blank, chances are you'll be aiming to creating something very similar to the existing high-quality semi-finished stocks, so creating from a blank today might be a more authentic process, but doesn't necessarily produce a finished object that looks more 'authentic'. Again, it's worth bearing in mind that a successful, well-known gunmaker of the type we usually try to emulate might have had assistants who prepared the stock to a semi-finished state for him, and made sure all the components were ready, so in a sense he was starting from the point where many of us begin with a 'kit.'

Even a stock that's quite close to finished as in my Chambers kit allows for a considerable degree of variation in the final shaping, enough to make it quite distinctive.

These thoughts obviously don't apply so strongly if you're trying to emulate something unique or rare, where it's vital to begin from 'scratch.'

I'm looking forward to trying to build a stock from a blank, but I'm happy to be supplied with all the other components from the huge range now available, much as a gunmaker would in the 18th century (in fact, ordering from suppliers like TOW, I feel like an 18th c American gunsmith ordering from suppliers of locks and other metalwork from Birmingham in England.)

 

"Now your on the slippery slope of opinion."

That's exactly what I'm after. I already KNOW my own opinion. I would like to hear the opinion of others. I figure if we get enough opinions (replete with the logic that went into the formation of those opinions), at the end of the day, I may find my current opinion firmly entrenched as being the most accurate and thus correct definition of the term or, I may be compelled to renovate that opinion to bring it more in line with the mainstream. Like I said before, I don't care what the definition IS, I would just like to see one specific one.

"Totally hand made using only 18th century practices"

Chris, that SHOULD be an easy one as it contains enough description to keep interpretive latitude to a minimum (I would think )

"I hear and use the term Gunstocker a good bit rather than Gunsmith or Gunbuilder."

Ken, I have always liked that term to describe what most of us do. It's the term John Bivins used to describe himself.

"most gunsmiths can't reproduce parts, only replace them"

Roy, to me, a "gunsmith" is basically a gun mechanic. Auto mechanics don't make car parts either. Then again, they don't call themselves "carmakers" :grin: .

"Where is the line drawn?"

flashpanner, the answer to that is exactly the point of this thread. To my way of thinking, you can't take a gun made by Chris that is "hand made" useing 18th cent tools and techniques, alongside a gun made by metalshaper where every part was made in his own shop through the use of milling machines, drill presses, lathes etc, alongside a gun useing a commercial lock and barrel but all other hardware was made by the "gunstocker" and the stock built from a blank, alongside a gun made from a blank but ALL hardware was purchased, alongside a gun made from a precarve (like a chambers kit), alongside a gun made from a cva kit that came assembled in the white and required finishing, and say they are ALL made from scratch. So yes, where do you draw the line. And if you draw that line somewhere in the middle of this list, what term do you use to describe those guns closer to the front of the list??.

"I don't think we're doing it much different than the old gunsmiths so why mess with the lingo?"

Don, my intention is not to "mess with the lingo". My point is that the "lingo" IS messed up and perhaps it would be nice to see if the "lingo" can be organized and give words that we commonly use a specific meaning.

"It's just words. They mean different things to different people.The process is what's important for many of us."

Rich, if memory serves, you build guns and sell them. So, lets say you are at a gun show and you are selling some of your guns and when asked, you tell a prospective customer that "all my guns are made from scratch and therefore there's quite alot of work that goes into it and that's why they are $2000". The guy at the table next to you is also selling guns and on his table, he has an assortment of lyman GPR's that were made from kits and he has a sign stateing
"scratch built guns for sale, $450". Would that be false advertising or is it just words that mean different things to different people?.

Just a few points to ponder.

Cody

 

[Hoyt]

Since I'm a rookie at putting traditional guns together and do it just for me..I've tried...a little..not to say I built one..just so not to insinuate I know what I'm doing.
However..after reading this post I don't think I will bother anymore. Maybe I'll just use this link for a signature.
Steel Toe Shoes

 

[rich pierce]

(Quoting Cody above) Rich, if memory serves, you build guns and sell them. So, lets say you are at a gun show and you are selling some of your guns and when asked, you tell a prospective customer that "all my guns are made from scratch and therefore there's quite alot of work that goes into it and that's why they are $2000". The guy at the table next to you is also selling guns and on his table, he has an assortment of lyman GPR's that were made from kits and he has a sign stateing
"scratch built guns for sale, $450". Would that be false advertising or is it just words that mean different things to different people?.

Just a few points to ponder.

Cody

I think we need to assume that folks use words differently. In general a buyer normally does not value the process as much as the product. And keep in mind there are 2 types of customers at least. One is the "off the table, on consignment, or Track of the Wild Canine" customer, and the other is a personal customer who comes to a builder with a concept.

In your previous example (off the table), I have found that most folks expect "custom level parts" for a $2000 gun in addition to excellent assembly and finish:
Barrel from a small shop (Rice, Getz, Colerain, etc)
Lock from Chambers, Davis, maybe L&R
Nice wood.

Those are common to high level kits with pre-carved stocks and guns built from unique assemblages of parts and a blank.

It is possible but not guaranteed that a builder can get a higher price for truly custom parts. In my current build, the lockplate and frizzen are castings from Blackley, the buttplate is hand-formed of sheet brass, the guard is highly customized and does not resemble the rough casting much, the thimbles are handmade to specific specs, the sideplate and nosecap are handmade to spec, etc. I started with a blank. I used no power tools in fitting parts to stock, including barrel inletting. Will a buyer pay more than a similar quality rifle buit from a Chambers kit where most of the parts are 90% inlet by machine and are the same as 100 others made this year? Some might. Many will not, as the gun will not inherently be "better" on account of the special steps I took. I am looking to satisfy myself first, and get what the market will bear, so I can do the next one. I build what I want to build, the way it strikes me, and they used to sell pretty quickly. I'm just getting back into it after 17 years off, but, they are still made the same way.

If someone hand forges a barrel and scratch-builds a lock and fabricates the components, they'd better find a customer who wants it that way. It's not guaranteed. No bonus points unless the work is very well done or appeals to a customer who wants it that way.

 

Rich, all very good points and I'm with you all the way. However, I think you just made my point.

If someone hand forges a barrel and scratch-builds a lock and fabricates the components,.....

That being, what do you mean when you say "scratch-builds a lock"??? Do you mean a lock like you described earlier, "bought the plate and frizzen from Blackley" and made all other parts? or "bought the plate and frizzen from Blackley" and fitted L&R internals? or assembled a Siler kit?, or make all of the parts including the plate and frizzen?. Because, as it stands, everyone is free to consider "scratch built" to mean anything they choose, how can anyone know for sure what you meant when you say "If someone hand forges a barrel and scratch-builds a lock"?.
That's the intention of this entire thread. As I've said before, I don't care where the "line is drawn". Lets consider "scratch built" to be something like "smooth rifle". A few years ago, when someone refered to a "smooth rifle" opinions as to what constituted a "smooth rifle" were all over the map. It was discussed, sometimes at length on various forums, and now, if someone new asks for a definition of a "smooth rifle", the answer is pretty consistent from forum to forum and when someone refers to a 'smooth rifle', most readers know exactly what they are talking about. Perhaps not the best analogy but the point being that if we discuss it maybe we can at least get some sort of consensus as to the meaning and narrow it down to a manageable degree of variation rather than "it means whatever someone wants it to mean". Maybe i'm the only one that would like to see a consistent definition applied to the term. I hope not. I really appreciate y'all taking the time participate in this exercise.

Cody

 

[flintriflesmith]

Cody,
I'm pretty sure you will remember a similar discussion of manufacturing/ building terms on the Muzzleloader Mailing List in the summer and fall of 2003. It was started by a discussion on the back porch of Gum Makers Hall at Friendship and spun off into much the same thread as this one has. You are NOT the only one who would like to see a universally accepted definition of terms. To me, as you pointed out, it is a matter of truth in advertising and I do not feel it is up to the customer to outsmart the builder by knowing which questions to ask.

Just so your other responders will can see the outcome of that thread I'm going to post first the question and then the summary of dozens of responses. (I would also like to call everyones attention to the current discussion under the Non-Muzzleloading forum about the Williamsburg shop.):
________________
Hello list![Muzzleloaders Mailing List] August 2003
Things seem to have slowed down so maybe it is time to see if we can start a thread based on another subject brought up in the panel discussion at Friendship in June.

What are the proper or generally understood definitions of these terms: hand made; built from scratch (AKA scratch built); stocked from the blank; stocked from a per-inlet blank; built from a per-carved stock; built from a kit. The last two or three may be obvious but just think about how the first three are used.

Under “hand made” should there also be “hand made with period correct materials, tools and methods?” For example a lock hacksawed out and filed up from steel bar stock could be called “hand made” but not PC because it was not forged from wrought iron. If the smith charged by the hour rate the sawed out lock would most likely cost more but would it be worth more? The same?

Is something hand made intrinsically more valuable than the same quality product made by machine (or casting)? A hand sewn hunting shirt certainly costs more than a machine stitched one but what is it that makes it worth the extra money to the customer?

Gary

 

[rich pierce]

Cody, I'd consider a scratch built lock one made from metal by the builder, whether he did the castings himself, forged the parts, or used stock removal methods. I'd not consider a lock made with special castings that were purchased to be "scratch built". That's just my usage.

I think it's worthwhile to spend a few extra words to be clear especially to customers. The lock I am using was not even assembled by me, but I do consider it a "custom lock" compared to models that are off the shelf. But to be clear to a customer I'd simply say, "The lock was made from castings from Blackley mated to Siler internals."

I do find terms like these below to be useful:
"Stocked from a blank"
"Stocked from a blank pre-inletted for the barrel"
"Stocked in a pre-inlet shaped stock"
These should be of interest to the customer but often do not add or detract from the value of the gun especially if it is sold off the shelf. It's the product, not the process, that interests most customers.

That being said, words like "custom" and "period correct" are often used with quite a bit of leeway by many folks to market their arms. I doubt a trade gun or a musket was ever considered "custom" originally. So definitions of the same sort of gun (say a Brown Bess) made 250 years apart, are different. And so are the manufacturing processes. It's better, perhaps, to say, "This is how I did it this time."

 

[aragorn]

Strictly speaking, a blank stock isn't really right for a scratch-built gun - you'd have to go to the woods, select and cut the tree, and cut the blank from it. That's where logic has to take you for a definition of 'scratch-built.' But that's obviously absurd for most builders, and for practical purposes, a roughly-shaped blank has to fit the definition.

 

[rich pierce]

There's no doubt that "scratch built" is a useless definition as hardly any originals would have been "scratch-built" according to the "you got to cut the tree and mine the iron" theory.

If I mined the iron, could I buy the charcoal? Or could I buy the ore and the charcoal and the lime and just run the furnace? Or could I be the boss of the furnace and use iron that was made on my day off? How would I know whether it was the batch made on my day off or not? Same with blanks. The idea that a period gunsmith went into the woods and cut trees and sawed blanks to make guns for his shop is unsupported in many cases. There's no reason he'd not get wood from a sawyer sometimes, or use blanks that another apprentice cut, etc.

It quickly becomes ludicrous to talk about "scratch-built" when it's so easy to shoot holes through any definition. I wish I could shoot as well on the range or at deer.

This draws our attention away from the main point which to me, is that it is useful to explain what was done in the building of a particular gun in terms everyone can understand.

 

Cody,
I'm pretty sure you will remember a similar discussion of manufacturing/ building terms on the Muzzleloader Mailing List in the summer and fall of 2003.

yes I remember. I believe i made a reply spelling out my personal opinion on the definition of most if not all of the terms mentioned. There's lots of comments I'ld like to make but don't for fear of unintentionally offending someone. I get excited when someone says they "built a gun from scratch" because, by my definition, that means they made every part and I want to learn more. I get dissheartened if I find out they meant they built it from a blank with purchased parts. Not that there's anything wrong with building from a blank or that anyone was trying to mislead anybody. It's just that we have two very diferent definitions and i was expecting something completly different. Another example is when I hear of someone shooting a big horn ram with a muzzleloader. Right away, I get excited because i automatically think "flint longrifle". Then my heart sinks when I find out that it was an MK85 with saboted copperclads, power pellets and a leupold scope. If "scratch built" is to be the term synonymous with built from a blank with purchased hardware, GREAT, at least we are all on the same page and know what is being refered to. However, then a term will need to be found to refer to a gun such as that described by metalshaper. If we want to call this, "hand made", GREAT, but then we need to come up with a term that refers to guns like the one made at williamsburg. Here's a thought. Dixons is one of the biggest gatherings of builders, both experienced and amature. How about if a small group of 5-10 builders from those that build kits to those that have made hand made rifle such as yourself get together for an hour or two at dixons this year and write up definitions. Afterwards they can be posted on all the ML building sites and from that day forward, those terms will have written specific meaning and anyone useing the wrong term can be directed to the real accepted definition. Before long, we will all be speaking the same language. Like I said before, it doesn't matter WHAT the defifnition IS just so long as it's the same for everyone. If someone doesn't like the definition given to "scratch built" TOO BAD. I don't like the word "red" and nobody asked me if that was an OK term to use to describe that colour but I use it when appropriate and when someone says "My car is red", I may not know the exact shade, but I know it's not blue. Sorry for rambling. Thanks again everyone for participateing.

Cody

 

[flintriflesmith]

Cody,
After about three months of discussion on the MLML I attempted to summerize the agreed upon definition of "Hand Made." My intention was to publish an article at least in the Contemporary Longrifle Association news letter but never got around to it. I did save all the emails!
Here is the result:

Definitions for MLML (fall 2003)

List,
Almost a month has passed since I suggested a discussion of the meaning of some terms used by contemporary builders to describe their work. If you have been following the various threads this spawned you will remember the terms I threw out for discussion were: handmade; built from scratch; stocked from the blank; stocked from a per-inlet blank; built from a pre-carved stock and built from a kit.

I think we had some good input and, as some of you speculated, I would eventually like the Contemporary Longrifle Association to come up with a set of formal definitions that at least our membership could agree to use. My interest in this dates back several decades to my time in the Colonial Williamsburg shop but in 2001 it was called to my attention that the exhibitors at the CLA show were not doing anything to educate the potential customers about all the different ways the guns on display were made. A man with money to spend became so confused by the huge variation in pricing (some of which comes from how the rifle was made) that he ended up not making a purchase. I’ve always said that gunsmiths make lousy salesmen.

Aside from a parallel discussion about the common but incorrect us of “original” as a synonym for “antique,” this discussion seems to have run it’s course. Here’s my attempt to extract and summarize some definitions:

Handmade””I have to go alone with Ric and Webster’s Dictionary on that one””made by hand or hand processes”¦no power tools used in the manufacture of the object. On a “handmade” gun all the components are handmade. (I differ with Joe who said that the availability of locks and barrels in the period would allow a gun with a Chambers lock and Getz barrel to be called handmade.)

Production of the raw materials from which the gun is made (stock blank, bar iron and steel, sheet and scrap brass, etc.) is not generally considered the work of the gunsmith. So, to me, it is okay to consider a gun “handmade” even though the raw materials have been produced by modern processes.

This definition of handmade leaves open the whole question of materials, processes and tools. As I mentioned in the original email, sawing a flintlock out of bar stock (even some totally modern alloy) by hand could result in a “handmade” lock. Ryan McNabb from TN wrote me off list and asked if a hand cranked forge could be used, instead of a bellows, to make a hand forged gun barrel or lock? How about a modern Surform wood rasp? A Buffalo forge and a Surform rasp are both are hand tools.

So just saying something is “handmade” is not enough. To really define it we, as Joe Ross said, need qualifiers. Maybe””Totally handmade, from period correct materials, using period correct tools and processes””would be enough. Of course not even that mouthful is a clear definition of how the gun was made because there were, in any given period, many different tools and processes in use. As several respondents said, to be completely clear a narrative would have to be written.

So is it hopeless? I hope not. I hope this attempt to define handmade has cast a strong light on what is not handmade.

Later I’ll report on what y’all said about scratch built.

Gary
P.S. In my 20 years at the Colonial Williamsburg gunshop I made a few handmade rifles. I never expect to build another one. Too damned much work!

 

[DrTimboone]

Interesting discussion.... :hmm:
:bow:
Wordsmith this:

1. totally handmade from materials available in the period, using period methods and tools
2. Built with a hand carved stock and home/hand made parts
3. Built with a hand carved stock and parts purchased from manufacturers
4. Built from a machine precarved stock and personally chosen parts purchased from manufacturer
5. Built from a pre-assembled kit manufactured by a builder
6. Finished from an assembled kit

Gunbuilder: one who builds guns using any of the methods above

Gunsmith: one who repairs guns

Gunstocker: one who specializes in building stocks and asssembling them to parts received from others - or restocking existing guns.

Daniel Boone had a gunsmith shop and tools but we haven't heard of any guns he built... he did repairs. :hatsoff:

 

[BLAHMAN]

This is a term that gets thrown around quite a bit and seems to have a broad range of meaning. here's what my dictionary says:
Start from scratch - to begin from nothing with no advantage.
My personal opinion (and this is ONLY my opinion) is that "scratch built" is built ENTIRELY from raw materials. It differs from "hand built" in that power tools can be used in "scratch built" but "hand built" is made ENTIRELY from raw materials, ENTIRELY by hand, no power tools. To me, it would be nice to have set definitions for terms commonly used regarding gunmaking (there's another term that could use a clear definition).

Cody

I consider the guns I make as "scratch built", even though I assemble the manufactured pieces
into a shootable gun.

It's scratch built 'cause there's lots of times I stand around and scratch my head wondering what in the Dag-Nabbit did I do now and how in tarnationation am I gonna fix what I just did?! :haha:

 

[flintriflesmith]

Strictly speaking, a blank stock isn't really right for a scratch-built gun - you'd have to go to the woods, select and cut the tree, and cut the blank from it. ...

Is there documentation to support the gunsmith cutting his own trees? I've never seen any.

Even in the 18th century, sawyer was a seperate trade. Sawyers supplied boards and, in some cases, stock blanks to gunsmiths. They also supplied cabinetmakers, housewrights, wagon makers, etc.

 

[flintriflesmith]

Rich,
I know of at least one area where customers do pay more for the process by which a rifle is made and that is in the market for iron mounted rifles. Hand forged mounts command a premium over purchased casting.

The finished mounts may look exactly the same, especially if browned, but there is more pride in ownership of a rifle with forged mounts.

Gary

 

[rich pierce]

I agree and they should pay more. I wish that folks appreciated the craft aspect as much as they appreciate the finished product, as I like to make many of my own parts including buttpieces. I intend to make a "black rifle" based on Wallace Gusler's articles in Muzzle Blasts and will forge the furniture.

 

[Zonie]

Maybe I live in an isolated environment but I don't think I ever heard anyone say that he "scratch built" a rifle.

I've heard people say they "built" a rifle, and people say they "assembled" a rifle but that's about it.

To me, saying they "assembled" a rifle is quite descriptive although this term probably should be reserved for the Factory Kits which are basically finished parts requireing only sanding, polishing and screwing things together.

I also don't have a problem with people saying they "built" a rifle even if they bought the semi finished parts (including the stock) from a supplier.
As we know, there is enough drilling, tapping, filing, sanding, polishing, carving etc which needs to be done to qualify IMO for the word "built".
An example of "built" is happening across the alley from where I live. They are "building" a house. They aren't making the pipes, wiring, windows etc, but there is a whole crew over there who would put knots on the heads of anyone who told them they were not building a house. :grin:

To me, the term "scratch built" requires forging the lockplate, buttplate and barrel. Casting or forging the trigger guard, butt plate, pipes etc.
Using a dryed blank of wood and creating all of the features/inlets.
I have a VCR of this being done, but I've never heard anyone actually saying that they have done it.

 

[flintriflesmith]

Maybe I live in an isolated environment but I don't think I ever heard anyone say that he "scratch built" a rifle.

To me, the term "scratch built" requires forging the lockplate, buttplate and barrel. Casting or forging the trigger guard, butt plate, pipes etc.
Using a dryed blank of wood and creating all of the features/inlets.

I have a VCR of this being done, but I've never heard anyone actually saying that they have done it.

Maybe I live in an isolated environment but I don't think I ever heard anyone say that he "scratch built" a rifle.
Back here in the east the term scratch built is used a lot and I see it on most message boards.

Several years ago it was also a trem used in the catagories for exibiting at Dixon's Gunmakers Fair.

To me, the term "scratch built" requires ...
The fact that you have to start that statement with "To me," is the whole point of this thread. Some of us would like to see a more universal understanding of the term "scratch built."

I have a VCR of this being done, but I've never heard anyone actually saying that they have done it.

I have done it. So have about eight other gunsmiths who apprenticed in the Colonial Williamsburg gun shop. Other than those apprentices, I know of less than a dozen folks who have actually made every component of a longrifle by hand using period techniques (no power tools).

For more on that subject see the Wiliamsburg thread on the Non-Muzzleloading Forum.

Gary

 

[Capt. Jas.]

"Other than those apprentices, I know of less than a dozen folks who have actually made every component of a longrifle by hand using period techniques (no power tools)."

Although most of his more recent prizewinning guns included some power tools like a bandsaw, etc. in the building operation, Jim Hash of VA is one of those few who have done it all including forging and rifeling the barrels.

 

[Zonie]

"The fact that you have to start that statement with "To me," is the whole point of this thread. "
_________________________

My responce was only qualified with "to me" because I do not have the definitive answer to the issue. I don't think anyone does.

Each and every responce to this post is giving each individuals "to me" whether it says this or not. I was prefacing my remarks so that the reader would understand where my statements were coming from.

You can use my comments as my vote in your endeavor to create this "more universal understanding of the term "scratch built."

I am not sure what will be done with this "more universal understanding" or what issue it will settle, but I wish you well in your endeavor.