Wow, six pages!
I think it was the daisy heads that put me off from the original idea. That, and the fact that tack work can be easily taken too far.
I'm in the NO TACKS camp. While I have seen some guns that looked nice with tacks, it is difficult to pull off artfully and tastefully. But beyond the aesthetics is feel. Tacks physically alter the feel of your gun. For me this is a bigger deal than looks alone. I can have the same issue with the placement of inlays too.
IMO, "feel" is critical to being able to shoot the gun accurately. After all, it's an extension of you.
Sometimes they feel like a pebble in the shoe to me.
My 2 cents, worth every penny.
I appreciated
coloradoclyde's post. Half a century ago, I had a cheap, imported percussion fowling piece, imported from Spain by Dixie Gun Works. I had a lot of fun with that gun. I put tacks on it after seeing some pictures of native guns, but didn't like the way they felt under my hand, so eventually pulled them out. I haven't tacked any of my guns since then, although, as a form of self-expression, I find tackwork interesting.
The brass-mounted, modern halfstock shown in post #87 looks good, to me. It looks like a T/C "Hawken," heavily used, properly cared for, and much appreciated. The tacks are placed in very simple, bold patterns on the buttstock and forearm, with perfect spacing and alignment. They have proper, high-dome heads that appear to have acquired a patina that matches the brass mountings on the rifle. Even though I would probably not tack one of my own guns, I see nothing wrong with that rifle, and it appears to provide its owner a lot of joy.
Here are a couple more originals that were tacked. This first one is a rifle that is believed to have belonged to Jim Beckwourth, the mountain man. Jim was biracial, African-American and white, but once in the mountains, he pitched in with the Crow people and lived, hunted, and even went with them into battle. We wonder if his native friends might have influenced his sense of aesthetics:
I see a row of tacks bordering the buttplate on both sides, some widely spaced tacks on the forearm, and some tacks securing the rawhide wrap on the wrist. These on the wrist would bother me, if it were my rifle. Overall, the design concept is similar to that on the T/C Hawken in post #87... Just a little more crudely done. I love this rifle, though.
The next one is on the
Heritage Auctions website. They identify it as a Civil War era "Austrian Rifle." It looks like a Lorenz, to me. Again, the tackwork is simple and straightforward:
The tackwork on the buttstock is further enhanced with incised carving:
A similar cross or "four winds" design is carved on the opposite side. No tacks on the cheek to catch in one's beard! I don't know anything of the provenance of this rifle. The folks at Heritage Auction tell us it "found its way into Indian hands," which seems a reasonable assumption. In my opinion, the tackwork and carving on this rifle look good.
No tacks. Brings up an interesting question though. How did the whole tack thing get started in the first place. Seems like maybe they were like wampum that got traded along with the rifle. Or maybe the thought was to add some "armor" to the wood to help protect it in rough field conditions.
Before there were tacks, there was wampum inlay. This old stock was recovered from the St. Lawrence, and is believed to have been on board one of the ships in Phips' Fleet:
The metal parts were all gone, but the organic materials survived. I don't think it ever had a buttplate. Here is a better look at the artwork:
There are very few known guns with wampum or bead inlay, but there are at least a couple, and there are also some other wooden artifacts, such as war clubs and bowls, that have bead inlay. I think it looks pretty cool, the way this gun was embellished. It shows a lot of ingenuity and creativity. Since the beads are pressed in flush with the surface, there are no objectionable bumps under the hand, either.
If you want to read more about this interesting old musket, and wampum inlay in general, there is a really good article right here:
A Wampum Inlaid Musket
I am an Indian, if it was shiny we liked them. Also sometimes you will see a dragon fly likeness, we believed it would carry our prayers into the presence of the Creator. I realize they didn't stay that way but that did not matter. So if it was taken in battle that was a way to show ownership. Sometimes done tastefully and sometimes not, but if you were showing off it did not matter. Also from todays stand point it depends if you are reenacting and what your persona is. I would not do it to an expensive gun but I did tack a a trade gun made from a kit and a blunderbuss just to look like it was taken in battle. Purely up to the person .
We appreciate
Rusty Sherrick's perspective. Now and then, you see tacks arranged in the form of a "Cross of Lorraine," with two horizontal bars. I wonder now if these might have been intended to be dragonflies. I've frequently seen painted dragonfly imagery on native rawhide pieces, such as knife sheaths and on shields. Most that I have seen, I believe, were attributed to the Cheyenne. It would make sense, given Rusty's interpretation, that similar images would be put on one's gun, using whatever medium (e.g. brass tacks) seemed most appropriate.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob