The $54,000 flintlock rifle

[Lucky R A]

Thanks to Superflint for posting the photo of the $54,000 Jud Brennen gun. Superflint has dubbed me a "Techno Neanderthal" and I try to live up to his expectations.
To put things into a bit better prospective, I believe Jud had nearly 6 months into design on the gun before the actual construction began. I spoke with him at the CLA show when he brought the gun down for Gordon and actually got the handle and admire the gun...Jud's comment on gun building was "It is a fine way to starve to death slowly". He had the better part of a year wrapped up in that piece of "High Art gun building" Even in 1998 there were a lot of people making a lot more money for work that took a lot less skill. I do believe that Jud shot every one of his guns before delivery---some he used to hunt with to give them some "honest" destressing.

 

[SCATTERSHOT]

Absolutely stunning! (I'll take two, please!)

 

[Okwaho]

Actually Russ,those Winchesters were mostly pretty rough, no yellow boys or 86's.The rest were 92's with one 76 and one 73 all at or below average and no rare calibers.I was being conservative on the Eister and today it's probably a $12-13,000 gun. I do think,though,that Joe was right and I believe that a $60,000 gun is a better investment than 6 $10,000 rifles and even more so than 10 $6,000 rifles if you need to liquedate.
Tom Patton :m2c:

 

[oomcurt]

No way am I knocking the maker's ability. That said...it is about the ugliest thing I've seen. I guess if you bought it as a art form it would be ok...but I sure don't know anyone of my acquaintance that hunts that would want something like that.

 

[Slowpoke]

I think this rifle is prices at a reasonable price for the amount of work that has gone into it.... as far as I can tell. If he made everything, including the barrel and the lock, that really makes the price about right. Many rifles of this type are built more for decoration and investment than anything else. Not shooting it and keeping it in "as new" is only to preserve it's value.

SP

 

[aragorn]

Way too fancy for me. To my eyes overall lines, quality of wood and wood finish are what makes a rifle beautiful, especially when you know the lines equate to great balance and shooting. This rifle may have those features but to my eyes the sheer amount of decorative metalwork is a distraction.

Give me an unembellished early Pennsylvania longrifle any day, something you know has great historical resonance because it's what people actually used. I'd love to hear about a real American frontiersman who had $8,000 worth of precious metal in his rifle.

That's not to say this isn't an outstanding piece of decorative art.

 

[sse]

We have to have an open mind here. Some guns are to keep, some to sell, some to shoot, some to throw on the ground or in the bottom of a canoe, some to hang on the wall, some to restore (and then shoot, store or lock away), some to slather with grease and store, some to lock away in a safe never to be seen (or touched) again, hence all guns have their place and purpose.

I probably left something out.

Regards, sse

 

[Stumpkiller]

sse,

Sounds to me you're only talking about two guns: those you use and those you don't.

I think it was Col. Townsend that said "only accurate guns are interesting." An unfired gun is like a girl that never got asked to dance. Sad. :cry:

 

[jim gray]

I think it was Col. Townsend that said "only accurate guns are interesting." An unfired gun is like a girl that never got asked to dance. Sad.

There's nothing wrong with functional art. I can always hang a painting, or more likely a print, on the wall simply for decoration, but if I hang a gun on the wall I'd like to take it down and use it now and then.