Woodsrunner Question?

[Smokey Plainsman]

Hey all

A .54 caliber Kibler Woodsrunner is calling my name. I’d love a kit for this fall. But I do not trust my skills in wood carving (which are non existent) at all to attack a fine piece of wood. The pre-carved option costs a great deal more.

I enjoy the looks of the un-carved rifle greatly, but I am curious if this style/school of rifle would ever have been found with no carving during the period? In other words, if one were to travel back to the 1770s, would guns of this general styling have always had some amount of carving?

Thanks and take care!!

-Smokey

 

[DrLaw]

I cannot answer your question precisely, but I can tell you this. You can carve the gun yourself, even if you think you are all thumbs. There are some NMLRA videos on YouTube that explain how to do it. Also, Jim's videos help a lot, too. I know because I carved mine. I had never done it before.

The Doc hopes this 'prescription' helps.

 

[longcruise]

I expect that plane stocked rifles might have been more common than those with carving.

There is this thought on how business may have been conducted in a shop: rifles were built to in the white. They could be taken out the door that way or additional work ordered to be done. Anywhere from a finish on the wood on up to extensive carving and inlays.

This is a theory I've read on several occasions. It may be well documented somewhere or OTOH speculation.

 

[reddogge]

You can make an incised line along the bottom of the buttstock and the forstock. They look nice and are not hard to do and do not make a gun look overdone. Maybe a couple of parallel lines on the cheekpiece. Sometimes less is better.

 

[bigted]

I (without proof) would speculate that beings a long gun was more a tool then a piece of art. A utilitarian long gun was used for protection from every point as well as to fill the freezer (so to speak).

I for one would pick the least expensive weapon (like I do now) to work for my needs.

Spose it all depends on what lifestyle you want to emulate. A frontiersman or longhunter or meat hunter is along the lines of my description.

On the other hand if a fairly well to do city dweller is your choice than more Foo faraww and doo dad's would be perfectly understandable. Like carving and purty inlays.

 

[bigted]

Least there be misunderstanding on the upper post ... in a utilitarian weapon, I would opt for as high a quality longarm as I could afford, trading carving and inlays for as solid a gun as my dollars would stretch, that would stand up to my tasks

 

[ChuckJonesWagon]

Inlays are really nice. Carvings can be a work of art. But the deer doesn't care about either. None of my builds have artful inlays or carvings because I can't do them to the degree I'd be happy with.

Don't get me wrong, my built flintlocks look very nice and I get complements on them all the time. But, as bigted stated, mine are utilitarian as well.

But the firearms are accurate and the whitetails can attest to that.

 

[Thingamajiggy]

I would say that it's no stretch to believe that un-carved rifles existed in the 1700s. Just like today, varying tastes and ability to pay are/were the driving power behind purchases. I have 1 of each, a carved and un-carved woodsrunner and I prefer the uncarved look.

 

[yellowhammer]

Try as I might I just can't get into carving. I understand the historical aspects, and admire the skills needed, but just don't want it on any of my firearms. There, I said it, and probably caused anaphylactic shock in here...

 

[smokepolehall]

Most of us have looked at the older era of Flintlocks & saw in pictures & Museum's these in rifle & Trade gun form. Believe there were way more people who were on the poorer side the than well to do & rich !Plain stocked models were the most common you would have seen. Personally admire a nicely carved model, but would not want to own one for my hunting rifle.

 

[CascadeRob]

I watched a video on YouTube awhile ago with gentleman being interviewed who was a very skilled/well known long rifle builder, of course I can’t remember his name. But i believe he said something along the lines of these rifles in the 1700’s specifically around the revolution would cost a guy around a months worth of work to be built for them. So I can imagine it was more common to see a rifle not carved rather than fully carved. I personally like rifles not carved. Although I respect anyone with amazing carving skills, y’all are artists. But for me I like the clean/utilitarian look of a rifle. Beauty on its own, but a tool that works for you.

 

[Wncman]

Look at some of the examples of the incised stocks both finished and in the raw from Kibler.
I believe those can be enhanced with some careful work

 

[hanshi]

I'm kind of an "uncarved" guy myself. I have one rifle with lines carved on the cheekpiece and another with a thumb piece inlay on the wrist engraved with my initials. That's it for me. One with a bit more carving would be nice but not nice enough for the $$ it would cost.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Well I decided on his fowler instead lol! Already has the carving done. Now I just need to learn simple engraving for the brass mountings...

 

[bpd303]

In the past 60 or so years of working on old guns, both flintlock and percussion, I have yet to work on one with a lot of carving and only a few with some carving but not a lot. My grandfathers original Ohio Vincent was plain if I recall, or it may have had a scroll or two on the butt stock but it wasn't elaborate by any means.

 

[James Kibler]

All that means is that you’ve not worked on carved longrifles. Ever look at books?

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Modern think and speculation aside If, If you are desirous of representing what was commonly done on a rifle of that period, it would call for a bit of carving. Look at original work of the period of interest. The rifle that kit is based on has carving.

Smokey, congratulations on that new fowling piece. Great choice!

 

[billraby]

I like rifles with carving and engraving. Lots of engraving! Pretty much all rifles of that period had at least some carving on them.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Modern think and speculation aside If, If you are desirous of representing what was commonly done on a rifle of that period, it would call for a bit of carving. Look at original work of the period of interest. The rifle that kit is based on has carving.

Smokey, congratulations on that new fowling piece. Great choice!

Thanks!! I recall the original has some squiggle shapes on it but nothing too extreme?

I would like to have some on a Woodsrunner but probably more simple. I’m thinking a plain maple stock lightly antiqued and finished more towards the brown tones with some simple carving and maybe some lines.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

All that means is that you’ve not worked on carved longrifles. Ever look at books?

Jim, I recall in one of your videos you mentioned that perhaps a simpler pre-carved option might be available in the future for the Woodsrunner? I think that’d be a great option for those looking for a little less carving.

I’m excited for my fowler kit!! I just bought one in 16 gauge, walnut, a night or two ago.